| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v185qo$1t4hn$6@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Sun, 5 May 2024 09:41:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 283 Message-ID: <v185qo$1t4hn$6@dont-email.me> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v17k4n$1pibo$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 16:41:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032"; logging-data="2003511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/VqR2hzo4dhW+h9sgSa+3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:6FadmgEwRJ7f+gcr+N9mMlh5r/o= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v17k4n$1pibo$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 14033 On 5/5/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-04 14:12:19 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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. >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========