| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v0vnud$3pgsv$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 12:55:25 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 138 Message-ID: <v0vnud$3pgsv$1@dont-email.me> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$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> <v0r350$2hb7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0t2rj$33d7g$1@dont-email.me> <v0to22$3881i$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 11:55:26 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d020acd94357656ec144f0e48a0b0de8"; logging-data="3982239"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lT1KKbQg9tjtVDdroXYsh" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:SBb1SYueMBtvdX0qDvbVW9EPvNE= Bytes: 7517 On 2024-05-01 15:45:04 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/1/2024 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-04-30 15:36:00 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> If it is impossible to say what you want to say then there is >> no point to try. >> > > It is impossible to say what I need to say in such a way that people > cannot intentionally misconstrue what I say as their rebuttal tactic. It is possible to write clearly enough that no attempt to intentionally misconstrue is convincing. > When I insist that we go over all of the details of each key point > then it is no longer possible to intentionally misconstrue what I > say without it being dead obvious that the misconstrual is intentional. Insisting does not help. You only need to go over all the details that are pointed out and keep fixing until no remaining misconstrual is convincing. >> However, one failure is not a proof of impossibility. Improve the >> text and ask again. >> >>>>> *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. >> >> I don't think that is the way. You have already tried so many times >> that if that could work it would have worked already. > > I tried this on another forum with great success. After 150 messages > and replies we got 100% perfect mutual agreement on one key point. > It is a lot like this: Your success rate here is much lower. > Socratic questioning > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning Only works if one can find the right questions, which is not always easy although sometimes it is. > We have never tried that going completely through every single detail > of reasoning here. My reviews here are mostly you are wrong you don't > know logic you are just a stupid liar. If you don't want to be called "mostly wrong" you must put more effort to correcting your arguments, and keep posting pointers to your most recent relevant corrections. If you don't wnat to be called "ignorant of logic" you must be more careful with the logical validity of your inferences and proofs and avoid saying anything that could sound like ingnorance of logic. If you don't want to be called "stupid" you should avoid saying anytingh stupid, and you should more often show that you understand at least something. If you don't want to be called a "liar" you must not say anything false or possibly false about what other people have done or said. -- Mikko