Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away
 with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:47:07 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 194
Message-ID: <v7otrb$1aciq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7m0af$n73h$2@dont-email.me>
 <v7nlun$1412g$4@dont-email.me> <v7of1s$17h8r$5@dont-email.me>
 <v7opqs$44m$1@news.muc.de> <v7orpn$1aat4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 20:47:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="750343008117602c3df088561f270b09";
	logging-data="1389146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sxjNK4A4t7AF2vuRqMQGh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/vhHiRrMMiL2fLqG/KZRy3S0s2M=
In-Reply-To: <v7orpn$1aat4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8804

Op 23.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef olcott:
> On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>>>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>
>>>>>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  
>>>>>> All but
>>>>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>
>>>>>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's 
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>>>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract 
>>>>>> reasoning,
>>>>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>>>>>> learning at all.
>>
>>>>>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless 
>>>>>> repetition?
>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
>>>>> mistake.
>>
>>>> What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
>>>> Fred. Zwarts had said?
>>
>>
>>> In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
>>> me that are listed above?
>>
>> What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"?  In
>> most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong, 
> 
> *No as many as one person ever actually showed that*
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
> 
> We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design 
> requirement that HHH must itself halt.

We also know that (a) is wrong, because it aborts too soon, when the 
simulation of itself has still one cycle to go. This makes the 
simulation incomplete and therefore incorrect. It also fails the design 
requirement that its simulation must be correct.
So, both hypothetical ways are wrong. There is no correct way.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
This has been pointed out to you many times, but you ignore it and keep 
saying that no as many as one person ever actually showed that.

> 
> For example I have proved that my point is correct recently
> to you several times and you make sure to not even look at
> it on the basis that you baselessly assume that I did not
> change my words to make them more clear.

Many people looked at it and found many errors, but you ignore them and 
keep saying that no as many as one person ever actually showed that.

> 
> There are more key details that I did not provide so
> that you do not get overwhelmed and ignore everything
> that I say.
> 
>> and you
>> simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact.  You
>> repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
>> fashion, either.
>>
> 
> Whenever any rebuttal is based on a provably false assumption
> I stop reading it.

But when other people do that with your contributions, you start to 
complain that not enough attention was paid to it.

> 
>> You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of
>> times.  You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed
>> out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry.  You are
>> arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
>> supporting evidence.  You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical
>> logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.
>>
> 
> Mike Terry is the most competent and accurate reviewer
> yet even he makes sure to simply ignore key points that
> I make and leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong
> without even carefully seeing what I am actually saying.
> 
> He only does this on one key issue, every other aspect
> of his review seems to be accurate.
> 
> Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>  >
>  > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
>  > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
> 
> Mike and I could never go to closure on the details of how
> this can be implemented because he begins this discussion
> with the certainty that I am wrong about this issue thus
> will not discuss it. Other than that Mike's reviews seem
> to be accurate.
> 
> I implementing the above with a way for the simulated
> instances to pass their execution trace up to the master
> simulator and Mike persistently believed that this was the
> master simulator passing information down to the slaves.
> 
> Every rebuttal of my work has been specifically counter-factual.

Only because you twist the meaning of 'fact', because you could not 
present any fact to be counter.
You did not present facts, only false claims.
When errors are pointed out, you ignore them and keep repeating those 
false claims.
E.g., you could never find an error in the following, but you keep 
ignoring it.

DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, 
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides 
that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which 
is incorrect.

Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of 
recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the 
simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles, 
because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========