| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 17:57:25 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v038om$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> <v0vnud$3pgsv$1@dont-email.me> <v107il$3t543$1@dont-email.me> <v128nt$erc9$1@dont-email.me> <v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 21:57:26 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3165471"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v12ic3$h1tj$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 12578 Lines: 269 On 5/3/24 7:38 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/3/2024 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-02 14:22:12 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/2/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Only because people here seem to really want to intentionally >>> misconstrue what has been perfectly understood on other forums. >> >> You must either adapt or wait until the situation has changed. >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> The key aspect is the granularity of the questions such that >>> leaping to conclusion becomes impossible because of the tiny >>> scope of each question. >> >> Yes. However, the granularity must not be too fine or the respondent >> goes away before all qustions are answered. >> >> But this approach does not work if you want argue against an author >> who is not present and can't be asked questions. >> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> We need to go at a very low level of granularity. >>> The first level of granularity seeks mutual agreement ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========