Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott machines (now fully defined) might be more powerful than
 Turing Machines
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 10:24:57 -0800
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <usd0ps$14o2s$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <usb9qo$nkt8$5@dont-email.me> <uscnje$14dmi$1@dont-email.me>
 <usctsf$15f5l$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:25:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1204316"; 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: <usctsf$15f5l$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2673
Lines: 38

On 3/7/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2024 9:47 AM, immibis wrote:
>> On 7/03/24 03:46, olcott wrote:
>>> Olcott machines are nothing more than a conventional UTM
>>> combined with a Conventional Turing machine description
>>> that always appends the machine description of the simulated
>>> Turing machine description to the end of its own tape.
>>>
>>> The input to Olcott machines can simply be the conventional
>>> space delimited Turing Machine input followed by four spaces.
>>>
>>> This is followed by the machine description of the machine
>>> that the UTM is simulating followed by four more spaces.
>>>
>>
>> An Olcott machine can still be embedded by modifying it so that it 
>> includes a description of the original complete machine, and whenever 
>> the original would access its own description, the embedded copy 
>> accesses the included description of the original complete machine.
> 
> I have refuted the Linz proof going into other
> permutations of this provides zero evidence that
> I have not correctly refuted the Linz proof.
> 

Nope, that is just a LIE.

You may have CLAIMED to make such a proof, but it was blown apart 
showing the errors in it.

You are just so ignorant of what you are talking about, you just don't 
understand when people refute your logic.

And, you have admittted that all of your arguments are just lies, as 
your logic is based on working in a totally different system with 
different rules (that you can' fully explain) but that you fallicaiously 
claim applies to the real system even though it can't.

You are just proving you are s stupid ignorant pathologically lying idiot.