Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning
 instead of rhetoric
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 07:19:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <efb5671baf92ae21e123224b77f8b52fb98cbfbd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvm948$34h6g$2@dont-email.me> <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvtf7n$17c1i$5@dont-email.me> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <vvudut$1ife1$1@dont-email.me> <vvuii0$1j0qo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvuk0d$1j6s0$5@dont-email.me> <vvvbtd$1ov7e$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvvpia$1tcfq$1@dont-email.me> <vvvqd1$1tgam$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvvrjg$1tgam$2@dont-email.me>
 <bfcd5b061ef0f74d9e711c1cefef0a8c44ac147b@i2pn2.org>
 <1002cmm$2i4bk$9@dont-email.me>
 <e21db6773cc8fc439910310c54eccdd8c99c7a1c@i2pn2.org>
 <1003pn8$2ul9e$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:27:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="449036"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1003pn8$2ul9e$5@dont-email.me>

On 5/15/25 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/25 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. 
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of 
>>>>>>>>>>> what PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand 
>>>>>>>>>>> repeats by both PO and responders...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I 
>>>>>>>>>> have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would 
>>>>>>>>>> be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the 
>>>>>>>>>> game go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same 
>>>>>>>>>> position. Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has 
>>>>>>>>>> ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the 
>>>>>>>>>> fiftieth time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time 
>>>>>>>>>> either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this 
>>>>>>>>>> forum would be considerably shorter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If people would actually address rather than
>>>>>>>>> dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
>>>>>>>>> they would see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his 
>>>>>>>> dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and 
>>>>>>>> refuted many times already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We might call that a disturbing ko.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
>>>>>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
>>>>>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite
>>>>>> string of DD specifies:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *DD emulated by HHH according to*
>>>>>> *the rules of the x86 language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> has never been explained. The closest thing to
>>>>>> reasoning that was provided on this point is
>>>>>> "that is what textbooks say".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ZFC reformulated set theory correcting its error
>>>>> and the original set theory is now called naive
>>>>> set theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we understand that a termination analyzer
>>>>> must compute the mapping from its input to the
>>>>> behavior that this input actually specifies
>>>>> then all of the conventional halting problem
>>>>> proof fail.
>>>>
>>>> But since that behavior is *DEFINED* to be the behavior of the 
>>>> program represented when run, it is your PROOF that fails, because 
>>>> it uses a strawman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words ZFC is completely wrong because it did
>>> not address the Russell's Paradox *that was defined in*
>>> naive set theory.
>>>
>>
>> No, it dealt with Russell's Paradox by creating a brand new Set Theory 
>> that wasn't suseptable to it.
>>
>> ZFC didn't "fix" Naive Set Theory, as you can't do that, and still be 
>> in it. They created an alternative, that did what people needed, so 
>> they used it.
>>
> 
> ZFC replaced the erroneous naive set theory.

No, as naive set theory still exists.

They created a new set theory.

> 
>> You are welcome to try and create your POOPS that isn't susseptable to 
>> the "problem" of non-computable Functions, but you need to actually 
>> define you system, and it doesn't change the fact that in Classical 
>> Comoputation Theory, there are non-computable functions (like Halting).
>>
>> Of course, it is certain that your computation system will be a lot 
>> less powerful, as that is what is needed to be done to get around the 
>> "problem".
> 
> The spec sufficiently defines it.
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>      would never stop running unless aborted then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> 

WHich your HHH doesn't do, for several reasons.

First, the above is a statement about PROGRAMS, the entities H and D 
must be programs will fully defined algorithms, as that is the basic 
concept of what Professor Sipser talks about.

Since you have admitted the your DDD isn't actually a program, but just 
a non-leaf function that doesn't inlcude the HHH that it calls, you 
can't use the statement that you don't meet the requirements of.

Second, "Its simulated D" will refer to the complete simulation of the D 
it was given as its input. The "its simulated" meaning which D we are 
looking at, it has to be this EXACT D, and thus include the code of the 
particular H that your initial decider would see. This is the H that 
ultimately by your logic will abort and return 0.

The simulation of that D, means the correct simulation of it, not the 
partial one done by H, as that is what simulation MEANS in the theory, 
partial simulation must be explicitly mentioned (and defined as to what 
you mean). Since the actual correst simultion of the input DDD (whcih 
isn't by HHH since it doesn't do it, but like HHH1 shows) will reach a 
final state, HHH could not have correctly determined something that 
doesn't happen, unless you logic allows for lying, as yours seems to do.

Sorry, you are just showing how stupid you are and that you are nothing 
but a pathological liar that just doesn't understand what he is doing.