| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 22:20:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 296 Message-ID: <v149ir$10h7m$1@dont-email.me> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <v05r5e$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> <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 05:21:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d5b94937ab75d91202558453b5391e6"; logging-data="1066230"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+6h3HUDTI9QLak/HXijy1K" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:tlm7eO+mZIB0UaTHzmlWYSsrVbc= In-Reply-To: <v13mk5$30j8v$1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 13862 On 5/3/2024 4:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========