Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:14:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 109 Message-ID: <1003pn8$2ul9e$5@dont-email.me> References: <87v7q5n3sc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87plgdmldp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <1002cmm$2i4bk$9@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 06:14:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66a8f7019eb14522c3a913b396c0eecb"; logging-data="3101998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DmgEaZqXAVJUcQBXXkVU+" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jqkjr0hDRhKR1EJYyvdAPdQYQdM= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: On 5/14/2025 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/14/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/13/25 12:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. >>>>>>>>>> It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what >>>>>>>>>> PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by >>>>>>>>>> both PO and responders... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I >>>>>>>>> have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would >>>>>>>>> be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the >>>>>>>>> game go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same >>>>>>>>> position. Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has >>>>>>>>> ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the >>>>>>>>> fiftieth time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time >>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum >>>>>>>>> would be considerably shorter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> André >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If people would actually address rather than >>>>>>>> dishonestly dodge the key points that I making >>>>>>>> they would see that I am correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his >>>>>>> dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and >>>>>>> refuted many times already. >>>>>> >>>>>> We might call that a disturbing ko. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike. >>>>> >>>>> The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report >>>>> on the behavior of the direct execution of DD() >>>>> instead of the actual behavior that the finite >>>>> string of DD specifies: >>>>> >>>>> *DD emulated by HHH according to* >>>>> *the rules of the x86 language* >>>>> >>>>> has never been explained. The closest thing to >>>>> reasoning that was provided on this point is >>>>> "that is what textbooks say". >>>>> >>>> >>>> ZFC reformulated set theory correcting its error >>>> and the original set theory is now called naive >>>> set theory. >>>> >>>> When we understand that a termination analyzer >>>> must compute the mapping from its input to the >>>> behavior that this input actually specifies >>>> then all of the conventional halting problem >>>> proof fail. >>> >>> But since that behavior is *DEFINED* to be the behavior of the >>> program represented when run, it is your PROOF that fails, because it >>> uses a strawman. >>> >> >> In other words ZFC is completely wrong because it did >> not address the Russell's Paradox *that was defined in* >> naive set theory. >> > > No, it dealt with Russell's Paradox by creating a brand new Set Theory > that wasn't suseptable to it. > > ZFC didn't "fix" Naive Set Theory, as you can't do that, and still be in > it. They created an alternative, that did what people needed, so they > used it. > ZFC replaced the erroneous naive set theory. > You are welcome to try and create your POOPS that isn't susseptable to > the "problem" of non-computable Functions, but you need to actually > define you system, and it doesn't change the fact that in Classical > Comoputation Theory, there are non-computable functions (like Halting). > > Of course, it is certain that your computation system will be a lot less > powerful, as that is what is needed to be done to get around the "problem". The spec sufficiently defines it. If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer