Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:56:41 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 Message-ID: <1029kjp$1ah2f$5@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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> <10296ad$17nsd$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:56:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0"; logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bOMOQ2I5T2jBdYi/I0nk0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VVms+d4vglbC2Hz9s9QCfgLLv48= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-6, 6/10/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10296ad$17nsd$1@dont-email.me> On 6/10/2025 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-09 16:24:58 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote: >>> On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2025 10:54 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:34 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 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, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There you go. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, >>>>>>>>>>>>> you're not working on the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which you stated only includes the instructions of the >>>>>>>>>>> function DDD on multiple occasions (see below), >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is proven that you are a liar by the part of >>>>>>>>>> my reply that you erased. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>>>>>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine >>>>>>>>> code of the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, >>>>>>>>> and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the >>>>>>>>> OS level, and that address 000015c3 is part of DDD? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I admit that: >>>>>>>> (a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH, >>>>>>>> (b) the directly executed DDD() and >>>>>>>> (c) the directly executed HHH() >>>>>>>> WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS >>>>>>>> HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because this is true it derives conclusive proof >>>>>>>> that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting >>>>>>>> sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That people here disagree with self-evident truth >>>>>>>> seems to indicate that people here are liars. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident >>>>>>>> proposition is a proposition that is known to be true >>>>>>>> by understanding its meaning without proof... >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, a non-answer.  I'll take that as a no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And since your HHH doesn't work with algorithms (or their >>>>>>> description / specification) as you've admitted, you're not >>>>>>> working on the halting problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are far too sloppy in your interpretation of the >>>>>> meaning of words. Also when I do provide an answer >>>>>> you simply ignore it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Replying with something other than "yes" or "no" to a yes or no >>>>> question is not an answer. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. > > No, you don't. You only force them to point out an error in your > actual reasoning, which they have aleady done. They have also > proven that the actual ingnorant one you. > No reviewer has ever pointed out any error in my actual reasoning. Most attempts to point to any error changed the words that I said and then rebutted these changed words. I point out Richard's errors hundreds of times and he never hears a single word of my corrections. It seems that some of my reviewers simply don't know enough about computer science or C programming. They don't know that they don't know enough, so ignorance squared. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer