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 10:49:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: <1026vqt$kb6a$1@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:49:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a"; logging-data="666826"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LcRqqwice4XsOSoXmh0y8" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5Gr2+pYU3hOu3Q9j/AHZIVCAVAU= In-Reply-To: <1026uuj$ipgg$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-2, 6/9/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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. The input to HHH(DDD) 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