Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 08:40:17 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <4c3518ce593567e538688445186b8e92aab05c94@i2pn2.org> References: <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org> <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <1017l6l$3cerk$1@dont-email.me> <1017tr1$3drlu$5@dont-email.me> <1017ufm$3e54m$6@dont-email.me> <1019vm1$3u8nj$3@dont-email.me> <101a65n$3vsp7$1@dont-email.me> <101a86h$3vfam$6@dont-email.me> <101a9np$gl7$1@dont-email.me> <101bt7o$58on$1@dont-email.me> <101cis6$hv12$1@dont-email.me> <101cjjo$hqle$2@dont-email.me> <101cmga$imoa$1@dont-email.me> <101cohp$ikgf$4@dont-email.me> <101cppa$j97s$1@dont-email.me> <101cqs1$j925$1@dont-email.me> <101cst5$ikgf$5@dont-email.me> <101cu21$k77f$1@dont-email.me> <101cuid$j925$2@dont-email.me> <101cv7m$kh09$1@dont-email.me> <101cv9m$j925$3@dont-email.me> <101cvh3$kh09$3@dont-email.me> <101cvsf$j925$4@dont-email.me> <101dboq$muao$1@dont-email.me> <101dlva$ot4g$1@dont-email.me> <101dmfb$otqh$1@dont-email.me> <101dn4j$ot4g$2@dont-email.me> <101dtca$u16b$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 12:40:48 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2688061"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <101dtca$u16b$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 5/30/25 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/30/2025 8:48 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/30/2025 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/30/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 5/30/2025 6:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:48 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 2:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2025 18:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 1:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 12:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There aren't many ways to invalidate a proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating that the conclusion is false is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficient (because you now have two proofs, each of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which claims that 'I'm right so you're wrong'); one must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attack the reasoning or the assumptions (or both) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show how a flawed step or a flawed assumption invalidates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the method (and perhaps the conclusion). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As it happens, Olcott accepts anyway that Turing's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is correct, so his only beef can be with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumption or a step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's conclusion *is correct within a false assumption* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the assumption that the following >>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements can be met: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is precisely the assumption Turing makes, and he >>>>>>>>>>>> makes it explicitly, and he makes it with the express intent >>>>>>>>>>>> of showing that it cannot be true. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU MUST PAY ATTENTION TO ALL THE WORDS THAT I SAY. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Noise on the line again, I see. I must call the broadband >>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing's only assumption is overturned by reductio within >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proof itself, so that can't be it... which only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> leaves steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can recall, Olcott's ramblings never go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within discus- throwing distance of a potentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous step. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no *INPUT* D to termination analyzer H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can possibly do the opposite of whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>>> value that H returns. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False. "DDD" is a description/specification of algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD consisting of the fixed code of the function DDD, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed code function HHH, and the fixed code of everything >>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH calls down to the OS level. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is not the computation Turing assumed could exist (for >>>>>>>>>>>> the sole purpose of showing that it could not). HHH is a >>>>>>>>>>>> hodgepodge of shit C and what looks like more line noise in >>>>>>>>>>>> assembly mnemonics. It is not a universal computation such >>>>>>>>>>>> as Turing envisaged: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +++++ >>>>>>>>>>>> Let us suppose that there is such a process; that is to say, >>>>>>>>>>>> that we can invent a machine >>>>>>>>>>> the S.D of any computing machine i l will test this S.D and >>>>>>>>>>>> if i l is circular will mark the S.D with the symbol "u" and >>>>>>>>>>>> if it is circle-free will mark it with " s ". >>>>>>>>>>>> +++++ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> By "the S.D. of any computing machine" he means the >>>>>>>>>>>> 'standard description' of >>>>any<<<< Turing machine. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is not that process, and thus HHH has no bearing >>>>>>>>>>>> whatsoever on the Turing proof. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the >>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input* >>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input* >>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input* >>>>>>>>>>> *input input input input input input* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i.e. a description of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed >>>>>>>>>> code of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, >>>>>>>>>> and the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS >>>>>>>>>> level. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Never stops running unless HHH aborts its emulation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, if you change the input so that HHH doesn't abort. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I never changed the input you freaking moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You did exactly what when you hypothesized a different >>>>>> implementation of function HHH.  And since function HHH is part of >>>>>> the input, you changed the input. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed. >>>>> >>>>> It can be seen by humans that DDD correctly simulated >>>>> by HHH would never stop running unless aborted. >>>> >>>> In other words, if the code of HHH was changed to not abort, DDD >>>> would not halt when executed directly.  That changes the input. >>>> >>>> Changing the input is not allowed. >>> >>> When a human imagines all of the possibilities >>> of every HHH that can possibly exist >> >> You change the input, > > I am taking about a set of concepts > that you hold in your own mind, jackass. > > But you imagine them incorrectly, and thus lie to yourself. Your logic is FULL of imagination, but imagination that isn't constrained to what is allowed. You imagination requires a Trtuh Fairy that can make true statements that are false.