Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:25:15 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <840ad3b42a25bda3b380c128531e6fda3cc558bb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
 <vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
 <voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
 <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me> <vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>
 <vosnea$jd5m$2@dont-email.me> <voth2j$o3pk$1@dont-email.me>
 <votn62$pb7c$2@dont-email.me> <voutp5$12hqt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vovfov$15ohc$1@dont-email.me> <vovlfh$160g5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vovqjp$17scr$1@dont-email.me> <vp05ff$19vgo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp05v8$19oed$1@dont-email.me>
 <b2da5d2b71ff0b6f4b7f3c1cec00d31c6681d37e@i2pn2.org>
 <vp1095$1e7iv$1@dont-email.me>
 <37d7c05adbc91246db9980a82354cac13006b1c1@i2pn2.org>
 <vp14d8$1ii7p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:25:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="617984"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vp14d8$1ii7p$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4205
Lines: 63

On 2/18/25 12:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/17/2025 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/17/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2025 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/17/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 17.feb.2025 om 18:11 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/17/2025 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 17.feb.2025 om 15:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the problem definition is specify the algorithm
>>>>>>> for correctly encoding a correct geometric square circle
>>>>>>> then rejecting the original problem definition is the only
>>>>>>> correct option.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The inability to correctly encode such as algorithm
>>>>>>> places no actual limit on computation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, Olcott thinks that by changing the definitions he can create 
>>>>>> an algorithm to encode a correct geometric square circle 
>>>>>
>>>>> *I didn't say anything like that*
>>>>> That you said that did does not seem like any honest mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it is just as isomorphic to what you said as your "termination 
>>>> analyzer" is to the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>> THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THE ABOVE REPLY.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course it is, YOU claim he is wrong because you didn't say what he 
>> said you implied, but your statement *IS* Isomorphic to it in a sense.
>>
> 
> I did not even use the term isomorphic in the above.
> I will start trimming the posts much more.

No, you complianed about someone else using it to mock your misuse of it 
elsewhere.

The problem is your initial statement was based on erroneous 
presumptions, which was being pointed out.

> 
> *Stay within the precise context of my exact reply*

If it HAD a percise meaning.

Your problem is you misuse so many words, your statement are often just 
nonsense.

> 
> The problem of defining the algorithm to encode an actual
> square circle can only be correctly rejected as nonsense.
> 

But the arguement is in error if the problem was to draw a square with 
the same area as a circle, the classical "Squaring the Circle" problem.

Your ignorance of what you talk about doesn't make your erroneous 
"isomorphism" (that aren't) valid. It just shows how stupid you are.