Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to
 abort
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:02:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <utmqu6$3msk5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utlf69$39fl1$1@dont-email.me> <utlff5$3997r$3@dont-email.me>
 <utlgg1$2o1am$20@i2pn2.org> <utlirq$3dsl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:02:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c59f7dfe69f4a5279bf8dd8742d31ecc";
	logging-data="3895941"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/51PBdTrluAL55KbswT/k1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qZKoDc84JM3Z6gIT7sb0XQxKicw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <utmo5e$2plc2$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3768

On 3/23/2024 9:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2024 9:35 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> I note that during the past week there have been almost 1,000 
>>>>> messages on this group, almost all relating to the various Olcott 
>>>>> threads which apparently never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Imagine how much you all might have accomplished this past week if 
>>>>> you weren't so invested in this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just sayin’
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Try and provide a valid rebuttal. I have acknowledged a serious
>>>> mistake that I persistently made for many months.
>>>
>>> There HAS BEEN. MANY of them.
>>>
>>> You just ignore all of  it, showing that YOUR statements are just 
>>> your own groundless babbling of LIES, proving that you know NOTHING 
>>> of how logic works.
>>>
>>
>> *If that was true then you would not have agreed to this*
>> *That you agreed with this proves that it not true*
>>
>> On 3/20/2024 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>  > On 3/20/24 6:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>  >> Every H(D,D) that doesn't abort its simulated input
>>  >> never stops running.
>>  >
>>  > Yep, shows that H's that don't abort the D built on
>>  > them won't be deciders...
>>
>> I am using
>> [Categorically exhaustive reasoning applied to the decision to abort]
>> You and Mike don't seem to understand this.
>>
> 
> Nope, you are just using inalid logic.
> 
> You think that Hs that abort and Hs that don't are exactly the same sort 
> of thing, when they are not.
> 
> Thus, you prove your utter stupidity.

01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

The whole class of every H(D,D) that simulates its input
is divided into two sub-classes:
(a) H(D,D) that DOES NOT abort its simulation is incorrect
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would never halt and all deciders must always halt.

(b) H(D,D) that DOES abort its simulation is correct
     (ABOUT THIS ABORT DECISION)
     because it would halt and all deciders must always halt.

That you and Mike still think that irrelvant differences make
a relevant differnce proves that your views are incoherent.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer