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 13:48:31 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 143 Message-ID: <10276pf$ipgg$10@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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$2@dont-email.me> <10272c7$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$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 19:48:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83f8099c26aa018e5abc55e668b658fc"; logging-data="615952"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4waPqJQ4QpjMQBgx0SxiN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:348FhDfXNZmxVsqSWE13+zYVV68= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10276fd$lo22$2@dont-email.me> 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: On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote: > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of > my reply that you erased. >>> On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote: >> > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote: >> >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote: >> >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* >> >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original >> >>>>>>> was given. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input. >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes. >> >>> >> >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite >> >>> string HHH >> >>> >> >> >> >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion. >> >> >> > >> > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore >> > has nothing to do with the halting problem. >> > >> >> On 6/7/2025 10:56 AM, dbush wrote: >> > On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote: >> >>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at >> >>>> the machine address of 00002183. >> >>>> >> >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at >> >>>> the machine address of 00002190. >> >>> >> >>> False. >> >>> >> >>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at the >> >>> machine address of 000015c3, >> >> >> >> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >> >> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >> >> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >> >> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >> > >> > In other words, you're not operating on algorithms. And since the >> > halting problem is about algorithms, what you're working on has nothing >> > to do with the halting problem. >> > >> > If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on >> > the halting problem, people would stop bothering you.