Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 13:20:17 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: <102754h$ipgg$8@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me> <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me> <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026i2q$h686$1@dont-email.me> <1026slo$j3rp$6@dont-email.me> <1026ta5$ipgg$1@dont-email.me> <1026ukn$k2tr$1@dont-email.me> <1026uuj$ipgg$2@dont-email.me> <1026vqt$kb6a$1@dont-email.me> <102703a$kcea$1@dont-email.me> <10270q6$ki5i$1@dont-email.me> <102715d$ipgg$3@dont-email.me> <10271sq$ki5i$2@dont-email.me> <10272c7$ipgg$4@dont-email.me> <10272o6$kt3u$1@dont-email.me> <10273h4$ipgg$6@dont-email.me> <102745p$lajf$1@dont-email.me> <10274cs$ipgg$7@dont-email.me> <10274ln$ldq3$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:20:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc"; logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/v5ep/VR16KcQw1Y1bpv8Q" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TSr3bw8hIwjkgxKZE/hCvkiwbXw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10274ln$ldq3$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5006 On 6/9/2025 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/9/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/9/2025 1:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/9/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> By replying to a yes or no question with the full >>>>>>>>> and complete justification forces the respondent >>>>>>>>> to look more deeply into these things than simply >>>>>>>>> dismissing a view out-of-hand without review. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the >>>>>>>> question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my >>>>>>> reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning >>>>>>> I prove who is the actual ignorant one. >>>>>> >>>>>> And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only >>>>>> includes the code of the function DDD as you've stated below, >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you are too stupid to understand this* >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* >>>>> >>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* >>>>> >>>> >>>> Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below) >>>> >>> >>> If you disagree with the above you are disagreeing >>> with a self-evident truth. >>> >> >> I see you made no attempt to refute what I said, confirming your >> agreement. >> > > Not at all. I will not tolerate any scatter-brained > attempt at changing the subject, especially when you > proved that you don't even understand the meaning of > the words. Just admit that you're not working on the halting problem and people will stop disagreeing with you. Also: On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote: > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of > my reply that you erased. > >> Also: >> >> On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote: >> > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of >> > my reply that you erased. >> >> >>> >>>> This constitutes your admission that every counterpoint made since >>>> then is *correct*, including but not limited to: >>>> >>>> * The input to HHH(DDD) consists of only the code of the function DDD >>>> * Halt deciders / termination analyzers accept as input the >>>> description / specification of an algorithm >>>> * You're not actually working on the halting problem as your HHH >>>> doesn't work with the above >>>> * You dishonestly dodge direct yes or no questions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/8/2025 11:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> > On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >> void DDD() >>>> >> { >>>> >> HHH(DDD); >>>> >> return; >>>> >> } >>>> >> >>>> >> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>> > >>>> > No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with >>>> > algorithms, but you HHH does not by your own admission: