Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Every program is a part of some other program, and rarely fits.


devel / comp.theory / Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

SubjectAuthor
* What if a cat barks?olcott
+* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|+* What if a cat barks?Ben Bacarisse
||`* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| +* What if a cat barks?olcott
|| |`* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| | `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|| |  `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |   `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|| |    `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |     `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|| |      +- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|| |      `* What if a cat barks?wij
|| |       `* What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| |        `* What if a cat barks?wij
|| |         `- What if a cat barks?Chris M. Thomasson
|| `* What if a cat barks?Ben Bacarisse
||  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||    |  |+- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||    |  | |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  | | `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    |  | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Malcolm McLean
||    |  |   `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
||    |  `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Richard Damon
||    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]Ben Bacarisse
||     `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction proves that I am correct ]olcott
|`* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
| `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  +* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  |`- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|  +* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  | +* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|  | |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|  | | `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  | `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|  `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|   `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    +* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    |`* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    | `* What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    |  `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|    |   `- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
|    `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|     `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|      `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|       `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|        `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|         `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|          `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|           `* What if a cat barks?olcott
|            +- What if a cat barks?Daniel Pehoushek
|            `* What if a cat barks?André G. Isaak
|             `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
|              +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]André G. Isaak
|              |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]olcott
|              | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]Richard Damon
|              | |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |     `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |      `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |       `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |        `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)olcott
|              | |         `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](axiom)Richard Damon
|              | |          `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |           `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |            `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |             `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |              `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteChris M. Thomasson
|              | |               |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
|              | |               | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)Ben Bacarisse
|              | |               |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(Bolcott
|              | |               |  |+* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  ||`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               |  || `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(BBen Bacarisse
|              | |               |  | +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  | |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteDaniel Pehoushek
|              | |               |  | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(kolcott
|              | |               |  |  +* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  |+* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |               |  |  ||`* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  || `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)olcott
|              | |               |  |  ||  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  ||   `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteolcott
|              | |               |  |  ||    `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | |               |  |  ||     `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(dolcott
|              | |               |  |  |`- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteDaniel Pehoushek
|              | |               |  |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(kBen Bacarisse
|              | |               |  `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteJeff Barnett
|              | |               `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infiniteRichard Damon
|              | `* What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]André G. Isaak
|              `- What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ]Richard Damon
+* What if a cat barks?wij
+* What if a cat barks?Malcolm McLean
+- What if a cat barks?Richard Damon
+* What if a cat barks? [ How can a cat bark? ]olcott
`* What if a cat barks?Peter

Pages:12345678
Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17292&group=comp.theory#17292

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng comp.lang.c
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:15 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<udKdnabaTsZvOkn9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 14:56:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 63
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lqUUeF0Zpap4QaxZ/7iYFDLaolIxBVXFxIYdHEPQ/qMsH44/aNM9vKCnngqIcoGyYCI4ilgVu+ZD8Zm!bqPbAaaU2oC1sZtb8ATOs4cbxs8JYDKrTunAa+DKA/qgpdgnI38/YiAoTQWD/5+GPus0+zZVj6Q=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4692
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:56 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>
>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>
>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>
>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler
>> leaves
>> in its wake.
>>
>
> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the seagulls
> didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>
> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
> roof at the break of dawn...
>
> Mike.
>

It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the
conventional halting problem counter-examples.

The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does
not halt.

(1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
infinite recursion.

(2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
input that never halts.

Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
rebuttals were incorrect.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17293&group=comp.theory#17293

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:19 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad> <v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad> <n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad> <zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad> <xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:04:20 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 94
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-2YI8npj8scahwWxSvX/W1zV2PbIcOGFhK0ZyG1C1yBbjc/yZbUEPtjVASFMxZvhZvSlrcNtB+3RGJmG!D29p5xPs2aMaFE0OnzVpCxiu/yLIMNwGPFOJbIZji0/00z89ClhND78sSE9sDDfijE1ZSDUPl+Y=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6004
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:04 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>
>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>
>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>
>>
>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
> different H's

That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
behavior to infinite recursion.

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b29](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01) 50 push eax
[00000b2d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b31](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
[00000b36](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000b39](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02) 7402 jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02) ebfe jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000b47](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]

Columns
(1) Machine address of instruction
(2) Machine address of top of stack
(3) Value of top of stack after instruction executed
(4) Machine language bytes
(5) Assembly language text
===============================
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b25
....[00000b25][002116fe][00211702](01) 55 push ebp
....[00000b26][002116fe][00211702](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][002116fa][002016ce](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b29][002116fa][002016ce](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][002116f6][00000b25](01) 50 push eax
....[00000b2d][002116f6][00000b25](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][002116f2][00000b25](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b31][002116ee][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
....[00000b25][0025c126][0025c12a](01) 55 push ebp
....[00000b26][0025c126][0025c12a](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[00000b28][0025c122][0024c0f6](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b29][0025c122][0024c0f6](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[00000b2c][0025c11e][00000b25](01) 50 push eax
....[00000b2d][0025c11e][00000b25](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[00000b30][0025c11a][00000b25](01) 51 push ecx
....[00000b31][0025c116][00000b36](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17294&group=comp.theory#17294

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx47.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:17:21 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4960
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:17 UTC

On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>
>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>
>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>> different H's
>
>
> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
> behavior to infinite recursion.

No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that
includes the source code for the subroutine H which you fail to povide.

You trace proves that YOU are the liar as you selectively edit it.

The REAL trace of P would include the trace of the code of H that P uses.

You have also stopped the trace before it has ended, of if that IS the
end, you have defined that H(P,P) either isn't a computation or doesn't
answer the question.

When You HAVE continued the trace, it shows that P(P) reaches its finite
end.

We can stay that given your claimed behavior of H, and the code for P
you have given that by a PROPER emulation we get the following:

Main calls P
P calls H.

H will do its things and then depending on the which answer you are
pushing one of the folowing will happen:

1) H will return non-halting and P will then finish and Halt.

2) H is the version that doesn't know how to abort it simulation in this
case and just goes into infinite recursion.

3) H does something unexplained but doesn't answer, maybe is some how
aborts itself, but in any case, it never returns.

In case 1, the fact that P finishes shows that P is a halting
computation, and H was wrong.

In case 2, the fact that H never answers means it never correctly decided.

In case 3, H still never correctly decided.

If H when called directly by main returns an answer and any case other
than 1 happens, H is shown to NOT be a proper computation, and thus
doesn't meet the requirements of the Halting Problem, and the claims
that it is the equivalent of a Turng Machine is false.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<Lf5CI.97128$iY.67841@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17295&group=comp.theory#17295

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <Lf5CI.97128$iY.67841@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:32:45 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5849
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:32 UTC

On 6/27/21 3:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>
>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>> trawler leaves
>>> in its wake.
>>>
>>
>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>
>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>> roof at the break of dawn...
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.

Not implausible, but your claim is shown to be incorrect.
>
> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the
> conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Then PUBLISH the code, if it REALLY is verifiable, then a real journal
will take you code and see you result and laud you with praise.

The problem is, and I think you really do know it, that the code
absolutely does NOT prove what you claim, and you need to work up a
snake oil sales pitch to try and pass off the results as something they
are not.

>
> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does
> not halt.
>

Yes, Truth it a tough obstical to overcome.

> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
> infinite recursion.
>

But it doesn't, at least not if H has the ability to terminate the
simulation to be able to give the non-Halting answer.

Yes, Pn(Pn) built from the non-aborting Hn has infinite
recursion/simulation.

Pa(Pa) built from the Ha that knows how to abort its simulation to give
the (incorrect) non-Halting answer is not.

> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
> input that never halts.

Yes, but Pa will halt because Ha will (incorrectly) abort its simulation
and return the non-Halting answer, thus Ha was incorrect in the decision
that it made.

The problem you run into is that if you change H to change that
algorithm, you need to start ALL over in the analysis, and you find that
either H* never answers or H* gives the wrong answer. This PROVES that
there is no H that can correct answer of ITS P.

>
> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
> providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
> rebuttals were incorrect.
>

WHO HAS GIVEN UP. You are STILL wrong, and it has been proven. You have
YET to actually point out an actual logical error in the rebuttals.

> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>

As I have said, go ahead, make my day, submit your paper so we can hear
of the laughing rejection.

I think you KNOW that it isn't going to pass the test.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17296&group=comp.theory#17296

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:37:45 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com>
<87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me>
<87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f3e7473ca6c53c6efd7e62732fcb866d";
logging-data="5716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fclgR7Bpc1AfSaXtbxOCWoVeW/h/pDb8="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rH5tEdeTQgdiUI3ulMsmju1KE8E=
sha1:gKGB7+wPfUaJUkfyMaszXkzCERw=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.783f86cfdb27619504ab.20210627213745BST.87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben Bacarisse - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:37 UTC

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>
>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>
>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>
>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
>> in its wake.
>
> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
> seagulls didn't follow in their wake? :)
>
> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
> roof at the break of dawn...

For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
the hero. A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!

--
Ben.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17297&group=comp.theory#17297

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:01:37 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<OlbBI.605613$J_5.348305@fx46.iad>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:01:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 90
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-riEbReR88yOSOYPfl6CQGVtQiigaXUOPMZISjhVgP+3SlCP5tf2ltRUCJw5EUIpUX3ovr3b6PLYWCDF!4+O+qOzEUVK+J3UtlEkGZPjstsJ209hft0mHCfcv5h1bUmjKbNlB9jktWoaCg6IjDfXJY2FSq9OX!DtAljwugmaX4JeKF+qUIyfSrHA==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 6032
 by: Mike Terry - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:01 UTC

On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>
>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>> trawler leaves
>>> in its wake.
>>>
>>
>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>
>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>> roof at the break of dawn...
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>
> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of the
> conventional halting problem counter-examples.

Rubbish.

There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
account: You are a Deluded Dumbo!

I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're
an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct
perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just
part of your delusion.

Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous
time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you.
(And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally,
so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)

>
> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for does
> not halt.
>
> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
> infinite recursion.
>
> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
> input that never halts.
>
> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
> providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
> rebuttals were incorrect.

No. That's delusional thinking. People have stopped posting [I would
guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and
in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments
to you over and over. Believing that a lack of response means that
people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't
really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading
people into further responses? (Or maybe you're thinking future people
will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people
stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically
right"? That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)

If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you
to move on and get published now. Nobody here is going to write your
paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste -
best just get on with it!!

Mike.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17298&group=comp.theory#17298

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6da9:: with SMTP id u9mr14487917wrs.46.1624832800873;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.128.88.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:35 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<fO6dnQEYd73PmEv9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:26:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Message-ID: <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 138
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lkleE1bBoTm3F3ZEtt1+/vyPUsuIudio/ZjDnOSbmSgrflSFmtYJS5MnGmF/TRVc1olX+DU3+akSa3o!763cAU2cIhGDNciRux3sAGrJka8968xL0mlny46mY5Zhr3qWlRibi+hpC4AD4bZyncpQemW6ygU=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7707
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:26 UTC

On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>
>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>> trawler leaves
>>>> in its wake.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>
>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your
>>> caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>
>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>
> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that you're
> an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the correct
> perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that is just
> part of your delusion.
>
> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes numerous
> time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people tell you.
> (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation rationally,
> so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead of you.)
>
>>
>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>> does not halt.
>>
>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>> infinite recursion.
>>
>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>> input that never halts.
>>
>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested in
>> providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>
> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time, and
> in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same arguments
> to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response means that
> people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe you don't
> really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at goading
> people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking future people
> will read your words and think "PO must have been right, because people
> stopped responding, and the person who posts last is automatically
> right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>
> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for you
> to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write your
> paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to waste -
> best just get on with it!!
>
>
> Mike.
>

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{ P((u32)P);
}

I have now proven:

(1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.

(2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
P(P) never halts.

The details are provided ion this paper:
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation

If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal
or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem and
rhetoric.

I expect that you will come up with some excuse for not posting or
simply ignore this challenge. The one thing that I do not expect from
you is some half-baked nonsense.

You and Kaz are the only ones that never replied with any half-baked
nonsense, all of the actual reasoning has been sound.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<8MWdnZfIUqg1ZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17299&group=comp.theory#17299

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:28:56 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:28:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <8MWdnZfIUqg1ZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 42
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Hsd6BwWYg0zUSg9ttp/x4tzABIC/t3n4NwHwfCclUsCpoXw/rClbUDu6/T5FLLEAMQ/5WpqXVQmJrDg!T3h1WtLKn2UuxFCE4vXe76qT3Iankdpb7kudLOQBCMjPSg4o42ueYn7iOJIRcvURIE0sKkKHS3A=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3854
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:28 UTC

On 6/27/2021 3:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>
>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
>>> in its wake.
>>
>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake? :)
>>
>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>> roof at the break of dawn...
>
> For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
> that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
> the hero. A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!
>

My niece agrees that you are a Jackass in your behavior towards me. I
acknowledged that you are not entirely to blame in that I incorrectly
called you a liar many times.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17301&group=comp.theory#17301

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:58 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:46:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 74
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-fuJikrIaMhDHNrwEpApMLfbQLlZi+aPOPH5kl81ETVnFf8oo0DTwgr4Y9e1Swddfa3ZPzMRI0ARMgt7!5ZWQsHL1Ee/FTdEd3Lc3Cr6BV8rO/+IlgrQNRSTqZpE4skTb+CoJfkoAHRWp8A1heGQ5O650nEg=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4826
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:46 UTC

On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do not
>>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to determine
>>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>>> different H's
>>
>>
>> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
>> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
>> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
>> behavior to infinite recursion.
>
> No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that

OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.

void P(u32 x)
{ u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
}

_P()
[00000b25](01) 55 push ebp
[00000b26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000b28](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b29](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000b2c](01) 50 push eax
[00000b2d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000b30](01) 51 push ecx
[00000b31](05) e81ffeffff call 00000955
[00000b36](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000b39](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[00000b3c](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00000b40](02) 7402 jz 00000b44
[00000b42](02) ebfe jmp 00000b42
[00000b44](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000b46](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000b47](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17302&group=comp.theory#17302

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:03:23 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4961
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:03 UTC

On 6/27/21 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to
>>>>>> determine
>>>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>>>> different H's
>>>
>>>
>>> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
>>> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
>>> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
>>> behavior to infinite recursion.
>>
>> No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that
>
> OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.

That is the code for the FUNCTION P, not the complete code for the
MACHINE P.

If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be trying to prove
theorems about Turing Machines.

Call and Raise.

>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> _P()
> [00000b25](01)  55              push ebp
> [00000b26](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00000b28](01)  51              push ecx
> [00000b29](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000b2c](01)  50              push eax
> [00000b2d](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000b30](01)  51              push ecx
> [00000b31](05)  e81ffeffff      call 00000955
> [00000b36](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00000b39](03)  8945fc          mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000b3c](04)  837dfc00        cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00000b40](02)  7402            jz 00000b44
> [00000b42](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000b42
> [00000b44](02)  8be5            mov esp,ebp
> [00000b46](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00000b47](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00000b47]
>
>

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17304&group=comp.theory#17304

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:07:49 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6813
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:07 UTC

On 6/27/21 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>
>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>
>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>
>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that
>> is just part of your delusion.
>>
>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation
>> rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead
>> of you.)
>>
>>>
>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>> does not halt.
>>>
>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>> infinite recursion.
>>>
>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>> input that never halts.
>>>
>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>>
>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
>> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time,
>> and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same
>> arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response
>> means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe
>> you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at
>> goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking
>> future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right,
>> because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is
>> automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other
>> people think...)
>>
>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   P((u32)P);
> }
>
> I have now proven:
>
> (1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
> that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.
>
> (2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
> pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
> P(P) never halts.
>

No, you haven't.

You have shown that a P built on an H that doesn't recognizes this
behavior and thsu doesn't answer is non-Halting.

You have actually proved by providing a trace that the P that is built
on the H in (2) is Halting.

FAIL.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17305&group=comp.theory#17305

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:52 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:11:53 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tCD0rKmCiMmZipkKnWYsAUHNg2Y62yBxY7GgSxgUe+vU8TOC/uAYCfK0p6ZVLA7ISjXhv0V6VbD098L!GoJk8ADt8e0AXI6mfr66V1rywH7b98vXmVeaDrNWup526vlNGz1XuU09wZ3w7niI8CwRbYB1/q4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 4707
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:11 UTC

On 6/27/2021 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/27/21 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/27/21 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/27/2021 12:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/27/21 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Problem is that you keep refering to the wrong P.
>>>>>>>> The problem is that people that are dumber than a box of rocks do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> understand that with infinite recursion "any P will do".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An invocation chain remains infinitely recursive until one of its
>>>>>>>> invocations from the 1 ... n is terminated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then explain in simple words how you can examine program A to
>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>> the Halting behavior of program B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, although you call then all 'P', they are TOTALLY different
>>>>>>> programs, with just the smallest part of common code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That the different levels of infinite recursion are different programs
>>>>>> is such a foolishly stupid thing to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are MANY programs that you call 'P', just as you talk about many
>>>>> different H's
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That I have provided the source-code and machine-code for P along with
>>>> the execution trace of the machine-code of P proves that you are a damn
>>>> liar. Infinitely nested simulation has computationally equivalent
>>>> behavior to infinite recursion.
>>>
>>> No, you haven't provided the source code for the machine P, as that
>>
>> OK I will up the ante, you are a damned liar.
>
> That is the code for the FUNCTION P, not the complete code for the
> MACHINE P.
>
> If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be trying to prove
> theorems about Turing Machines.
>
> Call and Raise.
>

Finally a response that is not pure nonsense.

Because the behavior of VM P is entirely controlled by the machine
language of function P your correct assessment is utterly moot.

Infinitely nested simulation is essentially exactly the same thing as
infinite recursion with a few extra purely extraneous details mixed in.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17306&group=comp.theory#17306

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:18:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 144
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Ak4GL5mNNxqshfYSHYOtWQv5fFk256ZyWcd0Ea8cpGOqCV6dk/HVUtjzIZD7PJ6gHOpIPRnDnXMpeWp!Wm9BB8ZEqe5I+qP7pfgO2e0J0sjyPtSccyzOFgfu/XpYPZLbg6w5sQLrsk5HxBq0htTf7bTt/QI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7832
 by: olcott - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:18 UTC

On 6/27/2021 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/27/21 6:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>>>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that
>>> is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation
>>> rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead
>>> of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>>>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
>>> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time,
>>> and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same
>>> arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response
>>> means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe
>>> you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at
>>> goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking
>>> future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right,
>>> because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is
>>> automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other
>>> people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>>   u32 Input_Halts = H(x, x);
>>   if (Input_Halts)
>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>   P((u32)P);
>> }
>>
>> I have now proven:
>>
>> (1) The above computation does specify an infinite chain of invocations
>> that is computationally equivalent to infinite recursion.
>>
>> (2) Partial halt decider H correctly recognizes this infinite behavior
>> pattern, correctly aborts its simulation of P and correctly reports that
>> P(P) never halts.
>>
>
> No, you haven't.
>
> You have shown that a P built on an H that doesn't recognizes this
> behavior and thsu doesn't answer is non-Halting.
>
> You have actually proved by providing a trace that the P that is built
> on the H in (2) is Halting.
>
> FAIL.
>

When a simulating halt decider stops simulating its input to prevent the
infinite execution of this input this does not mean this forced to halt
input does not specify infinite execution.

The infinite invocation chain specified by main() is aborted at its
third invocation. As you already agreed if the infinite invocation chain
specified by main() was never aborted it would never halt.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )

<of8CI.97145$iY.64308@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17307&group=comp.theory#17307

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)(liar liar pants on fire )
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<PPKdnZySmaKq0Er9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kdkmrtn.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<NNWdnb9wOOF5Ikr9nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<MGPBI.300491$gZ.125279@fx44.iad>
<v4ednRzO69PQUUr9nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ucQBI.47500$z%.36426@fx06.iad>
<n7mdnTZLZ5hHS0r9nZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<L2RBI.684880$ST2.438800@fx47.iad>
<zuydnfoTgbg6E0X9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<2i2CI.30956$e21.27326@fx02.iad>
<xridnWsqutlXIUX9nZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Lu4CI.52036$4q1.40232@fx10.iad>
<HaCdnctKqN5eREX9nZ2dnUU7-cfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<i15CI.689600$ST2.7891@fx47.iad>
<gu2dnaKo4YV_YkX9nZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<Ys7CI.664900$2N3.327614@fx33.iad>
<nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <nfOdnW60hPElmET9nZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <of8CI.97145$iY.64308@fx41.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:57:11 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2863
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 27 Jun 2021 23:57 UTC

On 6/27/21 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> That is the code for the FUNCTION P, not the complete code for the
>> MACHINE P.
>>
>> If you don't understand the difference, you shouldn't be trying to prove
>> theorems about Turing Machines.
>>
>> Call and Raise.
>>
>
> Finally a response that is not pure nonsense.
>
> Because the behavior of VM P is entirely controlled by the machine
> language of function P your correct assessment is utterly moot.

How much do you want to bet on that??

Do you REALLY mean that the behavior of P is not affected by the
definition of H? Are you sure?

What about two simple deciders,

H0, always returns 0, calls all machines non-halting

H1, always returns 1, calls all machine halting.

Do you still want to say that the machine P doesn't change behavior
depending on the code of H?

CHECKMATE.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<1f045b13-8c84-4e24-8f92-5c522f65ae6en@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17308&group=comp.theory#17308

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9504:: with SMTP id x4mr22207368qkd.235.1624838445978;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:2506:: with SMTP id l6mr25895791ybl.418.1624838445784;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f;
posting-account=wr2KGQoAAADwR6kcaFpOhQvlGldc1Uke
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
<UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1f045b13-8c84-4e24-8f92-5c522f65ae6en@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
From: pehoush...@gmail.com (Daniel Pehoushek)
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Daniel Pehoushek - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00 UTC

olcott and his friends are alien god damned spammers do not help them.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<1k8CI.281590$Ms7.2307@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17309&group=comp.theory#17309

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
<UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <1k8CI.281590$Ms7.2307@fx34.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:02:08 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3180
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:02 UTC

On 6/27/21 7:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 6:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>> No, you haven't.
>>
>> You have shown that a P built on an H that doesn't recognizes this
>> behavior and thsu doesn't answer is non-Halting.
>>
>> You have actually proved by providing a trace that the P that is built
>> on the H in (2) is Halting.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>
> When a simulating halt decider stops simulating its input to prevent the
> infinite execution of this input this does not mean this forced to halt
> input does not specify infinite execution.
>
> The infinite invocation chain specified by main() is aborted at its
> third invocation. As you already agreed if the infinite invocation chain
> specified by main() was never aborted it would never halt.
>

Yes, the fact that it aborted the chain doesn't in of itself say the
simulated program is Halting, but neither does it make it non-Haltig.

The fact that the machine P has the smarts in its algorithm (inhereted
from H) to abort the otherwise possibly infinite chain DOES make it Halting.

As is the fact that when we actually trace the results of H returning
its decision to its caller, that the machine halts, also shows that it
is in fact Halting.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<d549bd65-330b-4dc1-a357-63266963c6efn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17311&group=comp.theory#17311

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:bc04:: with SMTP id m4mr22840120qkf.100.1624839109838;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:3585:: with SMTP id c127mr28560351yba.494.1624839109677;
Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!usenet.pasdenom.info!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1f045b13-8c84-4e24-8f92-5c522f65ae6en@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f;
posting-account=wr2KGQoAAADwR6kcaFpOhQvlGldc1Uke
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad>
<UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <1f045b13-8c84-4e24-8f92-5c522f65ae6en@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d549bd65-330b-4dc1-a357-63266963c6efn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
From: pehoush...@gmail.com (Daniel Pehoushek)
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:11:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: Daniel Pehoushek - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:11 UTC

+olcott and his friends are alien god damned spammers do not help them.
+americans please discuss fibonacci heaps ...

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<30dcc250-c3ab-429c-af68-8c60c750f8aen@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17312&group=comp.theory#17312

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9244:: with SMTP id u65mr22709811qkd.46.1624839328041; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:6c43:: with SMTP id h64mr27350004ybc.348.1624839327889; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d549bd65-330b-4dc1-a357-63266963c6efn@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f; posting-account=wr2KGQoAAADwR6kcaFpOhQvlGldc1Uke
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:2b00:770c:a400:c4b9:7da:ebf4:a71f
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <5x7CI.664901$2N3.418534@fx33.iad> <UqKdnTJfX52kmkT9nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <1f045b13-8c84-4e24-8f92-5c522f65ae6en@googlegroups.com> <d549bd65-330b-4dc1-a357-63266963c6efn@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <30dcc250-c3ab-429c-af68-8c60c750f8aen@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
From: pehoush...@gmail.com (Daniel Pehoushek)
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:15:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 1
 by: Daniel Pehoushek - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:15 UTC

+olcott and his friends are alien god damned spammers do not help them.
+americans please discuss fibonacci heaps ...

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17326&group=comp.theory#17326

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 19:08:17 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:08:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="95a99d3ae4f50631949ca2652f9ab9be";
logging-data="20747"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZsA/4vSpvoownvaDy6+1ObnRb+Mm09Y0="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hSgCbvq/hSZHkXC5DKJTkf9+EfE=
In-Reply-To: <87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Jeff Barnett - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:08 UTC

On 6/27/2021 2:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time trying to
>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy substitute?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>
>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling trawler leaves
>>> in its wake.
>>
>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake? :)
>>
>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>> roof at the break of dawn...
>
> For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
> that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
> the hero. A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!

His rightful (I assume that you have a good idea what rightful means)
reward does not include technical responses to gibberish. It does
include tips on meds, ignoring his repeated stupidity, and allowing him
to adjust to a world where his demented behavior is not rewarded with
lonesome-reducing dialogue. He certainly needs help and an intervention
but neither should include utter nonsense about foundations. Recommend
meds, recommend treatment, but don't deny him the help he needs by
constantly blocking his discovery of his mental problems. These threads
simply keep him from discovering the uselessness of his current life
style and from seeking the professional help he so desperately needs.
--
Jeff Barnett

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17331&group=comp.theory#17331

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:29:06 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: news.dea...@darjeeling.plus.com (Mike Terry)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:29:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/60.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 132
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Yr9Q9DJFtj6n10nYbZhvH8cC8vk8iZN+o3vc0NGNV6GqIjUGNrPnJ1E6GbbLMCY50lCjJyd+hiHKqMq!LoyD6QPB0er8daa5TthrKxRe6QIYiHOvJvJ5ppZo3+lS5Z2hE2ag4c+kYWHpBeiWeIVotS8U0Z1o!r7joNiKxQ4hLgsxEh/Air8B39Q==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7824
 by: Mike Terry - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:29 UTC

On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>
>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted the
>>> conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>
>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>>
>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>
>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that that
>> is just part of your delusion.
>>
>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole situation
>> rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is stupid instead
>> of you.)
>>
>>>
>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>> does not halt.
>>>
>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>> infinite recursion.
>>>
>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>> input that never halts.
>>>
>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all these
>>> rebuttals were incorrect.
>>
>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I would
>> guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their time,
>> and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the same
>> arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of response
>> means that people agree with you is a classic crank delusion, or maybe
>> you don't really believe that, and it's just a deliberate attempt at
>> goading people into further responses?  (Or maybe you're thinking
>> future people will read your words and think "PO must have been right,
>> because people stopped responding, and the person who posts last is
>> automatically right"?  That's a complete misunderstanding of how other
>> people think...)
>>
>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
<snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>
> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a rebuttal
> or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.

I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
not read them. It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.

YOU want everybody here to continue posting for you, using up their own
time for your benefit while you go round and round in circles forever,
reposting the same beliefs and simply ignoring the responses. I'm not
interested in doing that.

>
> Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem and
> rhetoric.

It was not a comment on your specific technical arguments - that's been
done elsewhere.

>
> I expect that you will come up with some excuse for not posting or
> simply ignore this challenge. The one thing that I do not expect from
> you is some half-baked nonsense.

I will indeed ignore the challenge because while YOU may want me to
waste my time for YOUR benefit, I don't wish to do that. (And childish
goading won't work, so don't even bother.)

Mike.

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<F4edna4SP_OstUT9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17332&group=comp.theory#17332

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:56 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<u9oBI.267517$lyv9.157656@fx35.iad>
<eKednajHd_LtuEv9nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<87o8brkpra.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:38:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sbb7ef$k8b$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <F4edna4SP_OstUT9nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QwHrSOfDGqsmO0z1lVuBJMhrlxet5NMrB5Q596DZsQQ2G05m3m3IG9APJzTnbYf50idVFSiOPyh4U64!yq0Hlf62TzIyZvKG7c4FTmhciT1OpiS3pWxyMQ+Z3ZtkpAA42F1k/kZFKLAaw2ftZfit9x/zfNw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5035
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:38 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 6/27/2021 2:37 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and conclusions. I
>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>
>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>> trawler leaves
>>>> in its wake.
>>>
>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>
>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although I'll
>>> grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the naughty
>>> ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on your caravan
>>> roof at the break of dawn...
>>
>> For the record, my objection was not so much being a rat per se, but
>> that the Pied Piper analogy makes the commentators the problem and PO
>> the hero.  A hero, in fact, who was cheated of his rightful reward!
>
> His rightful (I assume that you have a good idea what rightful means)
> reward does not include technical responses to gibberish.

On 1/6/2015 1:05 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> Peter Olcott wrote on 1/6/2015 6:25 AM:

I removed my words here are your words:

> Of course they cannot exist. UNDECIDABLE is not a property of a problem
> instance, it's a property of a problem given a particular model of
> problem instances and algorithms. So stop here. Your done because your
> terminology is hopelessly broken. If you want to continue these
> repetitive and off the wall threads, give a clear concise definition of
> the representations of computation and how to emulate them. C and its
> derivatives don't count for many many reasons: 1) the ANSI speck allows
> the same lexical program to return different values in different (or the
> same!!!) implementation 2) read point one again, 3) it's not a very
> interesting computation model, in any event, compared to the members of
> an expanded Chomsky hierarchy.

In other words you simply don't have the software engineering background
to evaluate what I am saying on the basis of software engineering.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<W4GdnaFUZc3gtET9nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17333&group=comp.theory#17333

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:29 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 20:44:30 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <W4GdnaFUZc3gtET9nZ2dnUU7-LfNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 121
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-x9QC9Guw6wFjlcNZrlAhnSCrNSQ7LJFQOSGWI3KLf00DUdAHhS12j2vINzKWswWxqr6t51aNWjC5bA7!IEi0rGpeHV3uzC9hu24Ybbp3JTc6EE1XVy6GQTt9gdFBahsDe6UxA+8WBr9EVmdCB/g+mwYNnk4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 7477
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:44 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted
>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that
>>> that is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole
>>> situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is
>>> stupid instead of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all
>>>> these rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I
>>> would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their
>>> time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the
>>> same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of
>>> response means that people agree with you is a classic crank
>>> delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a
>>> deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or
>>> maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think
>>> "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the
>>> person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete
>>> misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
> <snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>>
>> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
>> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a
>> rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.
>
> I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
> past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
> not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
> such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
> attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.
>

I take this as a cop-out.
I am willing to re-read all of your posts to make sure.
At what point in time do you think that you made a sufficient rebuttal?

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<fcWdnZCT3eYFq0T9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17336&group=comp.theory#17336

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite
invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad>
<cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad>
<BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad>
<RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad>
<I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad>
<yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me>
<a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com>
<OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
<8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:40:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <fcWdnZCT3eYFq0T9nZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 135
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EtixNGH75PxggUas8HLFi3BJYGuctvbZa1mO+EY/AJLOXXeJIGg2xMtKD5W9vLT4kRSEBGeq7wVkUcK!ammjqpZCbhphdx6QXd17JLerKitQQ0UYt2mcH0s+b44AOEsHdYS0wzSXafU6t4FIr7YORfIenUI=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8107
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:40 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted
>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that
>>> that is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole
>>> situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is
>>> stupid instead of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all
>>>> these rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I
>>> would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their
>>> time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the
>>> same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of
>>> response means that people agree with you is a classic crank
>>> delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a
>>> deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or
>>> maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think
>>> "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the
>>> person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete
>>> misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
> <snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>>
>> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
>> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a
>> rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.
>
> I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
> past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
> not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
> such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
> attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.
>
> YOU want everybody here to continue posting for you, using up their own
> time for your benefit while you go round and round in circles forever,
> reposting the same beliefs and simply ignoring the responses.  I'm not
> interested in doing that.
>
>>
>> Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem
>> and rhetoric.
>
> It was not a comment on your specific technical arguments - that's been
> done elsewhere.

I just responded to your "rebuttal".
All that you did was dismiss what I said out-of-hand.

This time I provided all of the actual code that proves that the
conclusion of my sound deductive inference is correct.

That you reject sound deductive inference as proof seems to show that
you are a style-over-substance kind of guy.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)

<SK6dnTY4V7GdokT9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=17338&group=comp.theory#17338

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:16:16 -0500
Subject: Re: What if a cat barks? [ sound deduction is a proof ](infinite invocation chain)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <BpqdnWBR5LTFj039nZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <ALqBI.113709$od.33914@fx15.iad> <cvednUP16NqYokv9nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <HksBI.267$al1.209@fx26.iad> <BuOdncUXaL2swkv9nZ2dnUU7-W-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <6IuBI.115687$431.109356@fx39.iad> <RKCdnSS4Ifj44Uv9nZ2dnUU7-VvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <hxvBI.20803$9q1.10955@fx09.iad> <I8WdnT2QqrV5G0v9nZ2dnUU7-WvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <EZvBI.43029$7Y.22867@fx03.iad> <yr2dnWJMMpJLBEv9nZ2dnUU7-dvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sb6nfj$i1b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <faf6990d-6146-45f1-a2d9-be79919177b4@notatt.com> <87fsx4n0ge.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb7kal$cib$1@dont-email.me> <87a6ncmry8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <sb8bq0$ft7$1@dont-email.me> <a7121d46-6113-48e2-a9c4-dea4ba2468c2n@googlegroups.com> <OPadnZTXCuHkTUX9nZ2dnUU78TvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3sydnY3gmYVCSkX9nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <IOadnYjV0oSsekX9nZ2dnUU78cfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <8MWdnZTIUqiGZkX9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 22:16:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <W6SdnVOQePp_uET9nZ2dnUU78bnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <SK6dnTY4V7GdokT9nZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 144
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Aca+XymuM6jzFuXisuhrQlHm8OsHmdAi7xqtDz+FQE96/mSk1qb8y43c3vASMjmqKuknAmv5cWuTvLl!pd8Xq2Ok8x+hFHvx5Xn5ki0JS0yJqKVi8apC4gyH6I9DGH8Oi4AGQcasQYRLOXMPoNaNXTS/Aj0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 8366
 by: olcott - Mon, 28 Jun 2021 03:16 UTC

On 6/27/2021 8:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 23:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/27/2021 4:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 20:56, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/27/2021 2:24 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 18:54, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 27 June 2021 at 00:04:35 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/2021 11:55 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jeff Barnett <j...@notatt.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's why I question that you and others spend so much time
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> educate him by endlessly repeating the same facts and
>>>>>>>>> conclusions. I
>>>>>>>>> think the Piper would quit marching if the rats would not follow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't appreciate the analogy.
>>>>>>> Sorry but do you have another gentler but more pithy/cheesy
>>>>>>> substitute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I'm in there with you all so don't take it as a shot at you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seagulls following the sprats of easy points that the trolling
>>>>>> trawler leaves
>>>>>> in its wake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're suggesting that the trawlers would quit trawling if the
>>>>> seagulls didn't follow in their wake?  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So the whole seagull/trawler analogy doesn't quite work, although
>>>>> I'll grant seagulls can be nicer than rats, provided we exclude the
>>>>> naughty ones that swipe your bag of chips or jump up and down on
>>>>> your caravan roof at the break of dawn...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It may superficially seem that my claim to have correctly refuted
>>>> the conventional halting problem proofs is implausible.
>>>>
>>>> As a simple matter of verifiable fact I have created the specific
>>>> algorithm that does correctly decide the computational equivalent of
>>>> the conventional halting problem counter-examples.
>>>
>>> Rubbish.
>>>
>>> There is a key factor here, which you constantly fail to take in to
>>> account:  You are a Deluded Dumbo!
>>>
>>> I know you /think/ you've done all the things you claim, and that
>>> you're an unacknowledged genius, but when you view this from the
>>> correct perspective of "PO is a Deluded Dumbo", you will see that
>>> that is just part of your delusion.
>>>
>>> Just about everybody here has pointed out your various mistakes
>>> numerous time, but you lack the intellect to understand what people
>>> tell you. (And your delusions stop you from seeing the whole
>>> situation rationally, so instead you conclude everybody else is
>>> stupid instead of you.)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one and only sticking point on this has been that some people
>>>> believed that the fact that int main() { P(P); } halts seemed to
>>>> contradict that int main() { H(P,P); } does correctly report 0 for
>>>> does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> (1) int main() { P(P); } specifies the computational equivalent of
>>>> infinite recursion.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Every simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of every
>>>> input that never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Now that I have proven my point all those that were only interested
>>>> in providing rebuttals have given up because they know that all
>>>> these rebuttals were incorrect.
>>>
>>> No.  That's delusional thinking.  People have stopped posting [I
>>> would guess] largely because they've realised they're wasting their
>>> time, and in the end they have better things to do than repeat the
>>> same arguments to you over and over.  Believing that a lack of
>>> response means that people agree with you is a classic crank
>>> delusion, or maybe you don't really believe that, and it's just a
>>> deliberate attempt at goading people into further responses?  (Or
>>> maybe you're thinking future people will read your words and think
>>> "PO must have been right, because people stopped responding, and the
>>> person who posts last is automatically right"?  That's a complete
>>> misunderstanding of how other people think...)
>>>
>>> If you really think your argument is correct, I guess it's time for
>>> you to move on and get published now.  Nobody here is going to write
>>> your paper for you, and you're not getting any younger so no time to
>>> waste - best just get on with it!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
> <snip reposting of claims not related to my post>
>>
>> If you honestly believe that there have been any correct rebuttals to
>> this then you can either post the time and date stamp of such a
>> rebuttal or if this is too much trouble post another equivalent rebuttal.
>
> I have made many serious posts on the content of your claims in the
> past, and without exception you have not understood them, and often even
> not read them.  It's clear to me you are not capable of understanding
> such arguments, which is not your fault, but it means that all such
> attempts to seriously discuss your claims with you are a waste of time.
>
> YOU want everybody here to continue posting for you, using up their own
> time for your benefit while you go round and round in circles forever,
> reposting the same beliefs and simply ignoring the responses.  I'm not
> interested in doing that.
>
>>
>> Everything that you posted above is mere guff, posturing, ad hominem
>> and rhetoric.
>
> It was not a comment on your specific technical arguments - that's been
> done elsewhere.
>
>>
>> I expect that you will come up with some excuse for not posting or
>> simply ignore this challenge. The one thing that I do not expect from
>> you is some half-baked nonsense.
>
> I will indeed ignore the challenge because while YOU may want me to
> waste my time for YOUR benefit, I don't wish to do that.  (And childish
> goading won't work, so don't even bother.)
>
>
> Mike.
>

I did do a very terrible job on the diagonalization proof.
I thought that it required the 25 pages of mathematical formulas of the
Gödel proof so I made sure to never pay any attention to it until about
a month ago.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

Pages:12345678
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor