Path: 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 16:15:45 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 321 Message-ID: <1027fdh$nuf1$3@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026ta5$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$1@dont-email.me> <102754h$ipgg$8@dont-email.me> <10275v1$lo22$1@dont-email.me> <102768b$ipgg$9@dont-email.me> <10276fd$lo22$2@dont-email.me> <10276pf$ipgg$10@dont-email.me> <10277j5$m30d$1@dont-email.me> <10278ai$ipgg$11@dont-email.me> <10279ha$mm0d$2@dont-email.me> <1027a5b$ipgg$12@dont-email.me> <1027c5c$nc63$2@dont-email.me> <1027dfj$ipgg$13@dont-email.me> <1027dpi$npoo$1@dont-email.me> <1027dsg$ipgg$15@dont-email.me> <1027e75$npoo$3@dont-email.me> <1027eej$nuf1$1@dont-email.me> <1027f4i$o022$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:15:45 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc"; logging-data="784865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191VkbwgxStgU31TXBEYjya" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kSRnEiQKYx9TQsiaXkZTHU5+k2A= In-Reply-To: <1027f4i$o022$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 6/9/2025 4:10 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/9/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/9/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/9/2025 2:49 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2025 3:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/9/2025 2:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 1:46 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 2:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 1:14 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:48 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 1:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 1:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 12:20 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have been over this too many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really not remember what I said? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I remember that you said that your HHH doesn't take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> description / specification of an algorithm, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said that >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes you did, see below.  As you yourself said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When you reply with just the word-for-word quote of >>>>>>>>>>> me saying exactly that I will look at the quote. I >>>>>>>>>>> will not even look at your attempt to change the >>>>>>>>>>> subject. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You said, as quoted below: >>>>>>>>>> * That the machine code of function HHH is not part of the >>>>>>>>>> finite string input DD / DDD >>>>>>>>>> * That 000015c3 is not an instruction of DDD >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No time/date stamp indicates that you are probably lying. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note the "as quoted below" part.  As you yourself said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am looking for an exact word-for-word quote with >>>>>>> a time and date stamp RIGHT HERE, all of your >>>>>>> misdirection indicates that you have no such thing. >>>>>> >>>>>> That you can't be bothered to look down a few lines >>>>> >>>>> Proves that I will not tolerate anything besides >>>>> a direct verbatim quote that is time-and-date >>>>> stamped that 100% exactly proves your claim. >>>>> >>>>> That you keep insisting on muddying the waters >>>>> with something besides this seems to prove that >>>>> you are dishonest. >>>>> >>>> >>>> About what I'd expect from someone who just admitted to lying about >>>> working on the halting problem all this time: >>>> >>> >>> I already addressed this too. >>> This seems to prove that you never >>> pay any attention to anything that I say. >>> >> >> I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that: >> >> * What the halting problem proofs prove is correct > > I said it is correct under a false assumption dipshit. > > Are you too stupid to know that correct under a false > assumption means incorrect? And that false assumption is the assumption that an H exists that performs the following mapping: Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly Which is precisely what the proof prove > >> * DDD is not correctly simulated by HHH ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========