Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:36:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <v0r350$2hb7o$3@dont-email.me>
References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvq359$1doq3$4@i2pn2.org>
 <uvrbvs$2acf7$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <uvubo2$34nh3$1@dont-email.me> <v00mf6$3nu0r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0ghhm$3oudg$2@dont-email.me> <v0gk5q$2a19r$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0gmrt$3qd6i$1@dont-email.me> <v0hfab$3vjo8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hgn3$2a19s$7@i2pn2.org> <v0hl90$4ehj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hna7$2a19s$8@i2pn2.org> <v0hpt4$59oq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0hsd2$2a19s$9@i2pn2.org> <v0i2oh$6orp$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0iog7$2csj2$1@i2pn2.org> <v0j295$dmbi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0jbgf$2djoe$1@i2pn2.org> <v0jdul$g54u$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0li2c$12aq4$3@dont-email.me> <v0oanj$1pbn5$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0odkk$1qhdh$1@dont-email.me> <v0of13$1qs9n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0qbg8$2c7pe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:36:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e18070faf38e3938218949b4b017f26c";
	logging-data="2665720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+g3PKFY1D4mjnoyRxGQLyc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jjjqZI+x0kqQG9blaaNOia99xyQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0qbg8$2c7pe$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5257

On 4/30/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-04-29 15:40:18 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 4/29/2024 10:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-29 14:26:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
>>>>>>>> my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
>>>>>>>> my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
>>>>>>> until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
>>>>>>> H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
>>>>>>> insufficient or erronous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
>>>>>> of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are 
>>>>> correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
>>>>>> WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?
>>>>
>>>> I now have an airtight proof that I am correct.
>>>
>>> That does not matter unless you post a pointer to that proof (either
>>> a web page or a publication).
>>>
>>
>> *That does not work*
>> At best people simply misinterpret what I say and then conclude
>> that I must be wrong based on their misinterpretation.
> 
> That is unavoidable if your presentation is broken to separately
> posted parts. Readers may miss some parts or read the parts in a
> wrong order, which inevitably affects how they interpret it.
> 
>> Here is the most updated version of my paper.
>>
>> There are single sentences in this paper that require long dialogues
>> to be fully understood.
> 
> A paper should be written so that it can be understood without any
> dialogue. If a dialogue is needed that indicates that the paper needs
> an improvement.
> 

That is impossible. I tried to have it analyzed on that basis and then
people misconstrue a dozen different points at once and have no idea
what I am saying.

>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
> 
> You should post a link to that page whenever you are talking about
> anything explained on that page (unless, of course, you post a link
> to a page that has a better explanation).
> 

When I do that people very carefully glance at a few words and
then leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong.

The only way around that it to require people to go over my ideas
one at a time until we reach mutual agreement on each idea.

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