Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 11:24:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 124 Message-ID: <10271sq$ki5i$2@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:24:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a"; logging-data="673970"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UPcSpS/NJHL+/stktpabm" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4yb8zCWzeF4WuiHikR0KeW0lCMw= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <102715d$ipgg$3@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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. Even the most stupid bot that ever existed "Eliza" could baselessly disagree. When I insist that rebuttals must have an actual basis the cluelessness of mere trolls is made obvious. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer