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 16:05:48 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 256 Message-ID: <1027eqs$nuf1$2@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026i2q$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$1@dont-email.me> <102754h$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$2@dont-email.me> <1027dpf$ipgg$14@dont-email.me> <1027e1s$npoo$2@dont-email.me> <1027e6c$ipgg$16@dont-email.me> <1027e8m$npoo$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:05:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc"; logging-data="784865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18l/Qn4qWm/GlKmyHkyU5BY" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:I6d95i/RRGpFHqDzZDy4u/OJV1U= In-Reply-To: <1027e8m$npoo$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US On 6/9/2025 3:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/9/2025 2:54 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/9/2025 3:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/9/2025 2:47 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But since I'm feeling generous, >>> >>> You will stupidly ignore that I said that >>> HHH emulates itself emulating DDD. >> >> Which it's not allowed > > > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR > LIAR ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========