| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v15lv5$1qp4$3@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Sat, 4 May 2024 11:58:28 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v15lv5$1qp4$3@i2pn2.org> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$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> <v14u4o$14nd3$1@dont-email.me> <v15fo3$17unh$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 15:58:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="60196"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v15fo3$17unh$7@dont-email.me> Bytes: 13570 Lines: 289 On 5/4/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/4/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-03 11:38:43 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========