Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

LOAD "LINUX",8,1 -- Topic on #LinuxGER


devel / comp.theory / Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

SubjectAuthor
* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ keyolcott
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |+* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    || `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    ||  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    ||   |  `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    ||   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    | |     `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |   |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |+- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Jeff Barnett
    |   |        |    |      |   |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   | `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |  `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |     `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |      |   |       |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |      |   |       `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      |   `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |      `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |       `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |         `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |          +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |          `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |           `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Dennis Bush
    |   |        |    |            | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | |`* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | | | +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Python
    |   |        |    |            | | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            | +* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse
    |   |        |    |            | |`- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |            | `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Richard Damon
    |   |        |    |            `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |             +- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Malcolm McLean
    |   |        |    |             `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |              `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |               `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    |                `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   |        |    |                 `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        |    `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [olcott
    |   |        `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [André G. Isaak
    |   `* Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [Andy Walker
    `- Refuting the Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof --- Version(10) [ key missing piecBen Bacarisse

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<F838K.80836$001.76431@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30698&group=comp.theory#30698

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!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!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com> <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <fL6dnY7RNeKK0v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <fL6dnY7RNeKK0v3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <F838K.80836$001.76431@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: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:17:08 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7334
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:17 UTC

On 4/20/22 2:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 12:51 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 18:35:43 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly not. The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>>> Deflection. As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code. You
>>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt. I can only assume you
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up. You
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>> ignore
>>>>> what I've said about it many times. Do you really think anyone will
>>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>>> sentence? And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>>>> me?
>>>>>
>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>>> form your preferred opinion of me. I am not that important.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>> correct
>>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>>> parameters.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Function notation is a way to write functions that is easy to read and
>>>> understand. Functions have dependent and independent variables, and
>>>> when
>>>> we use function notation the independent variable is commonly x, and
>>>> the
>>>> dependent variable is F(x).
>>>> https://www.brightstorm.com/math/algebra/graphs-and-functions/function-notation/#:~:text=Function%20notation%20is%20a%20way,variable%20is%20F(x).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we construe H(P,P) as a computable function then H computes the
>>>> mapping from its inputs/parameters to its own accept of reject state,
>>>> thus you "rebuttal" is merely double-talk misdirection.
>>>>> If you mean the two pointer
>>>>> parameters, say so. That "input" -- those two pointers -- are neither
>>>>> halting nor non halting. Maybe you mean calling the first with the
>>>>> second as its only argument is non halting?
>>>> The finite string of machine code pointed to by P.
>>>>
>>> Machine code is tree-like in structure. I particular, in your system,
>>> the "string of
>>> machine code pointed to by P" contains a call to H.
>>> Now are you excluding that code in H from "the input to H(P,P)?".
>>
>> The only relevant point is that the correctly simulated P simulated by
>> H cannot possibly reach its own final state under any condition
>> what-so-ever thus conclusively fails to meet the Linz criteria of a
>> halting computation thus is definitively determined to be a
>> non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> If {an X is a Y} "the input to H(P,P) is non-halting"
>>
>> then it is necessarily correct for Z to report that {an X is a Y} "H
>> reports that its input is non-halting"
>>
>
> We are getting to the point where rebuttals are becoming ridiculous,
> this is very reassuring. Every recent rebuttal simply disagrees with
> easily verified facts.
>

Except that it is YOUR rebuttals that lack facts, and ignore the actual
definition for the problem.

Yes, your rebuttals HAVE been ridiculous for a long time.

You need to decide, do you intend to actually try and make progress, at
which point you need to do something to actually respond to the errors
pointed out.

The other option is to just ignore that everyone is showing your errors
and just write your paper and see it go down in flames. I think you know
that is what would happen, and thus you refrain from doing that.

A third option is to repent and drop your silly arguemnts and just drop
it and try to find something actually useful you could do with your
remaining time.

The last option, which seems unfortunately the most likely, is that you
will continue to put forward you absurd ideas, ignore the well reasoned
corrections you have been given, and just tarnish your reputation even
more (if that is even possible).

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<Nd38K.80837$001.18562@fx34.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30699&group=comp.theory#30699

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!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!fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <Nd38K.80837$001.18562@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: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:22:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3798
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:22 UTC

On 4/20/22 7:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.  But I'm
>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>
>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>
>> Of course it's ambiguous.  Some people have determined (by guessing)
>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.  But you reject that and anyway
>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean.  I prefer
>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>> mean by simulating two pointers.  Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>
>
>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
> machine address [000009f0].
>
> I am not say one damned thing about P(P) except that it is a perpetual
> dishonest dodge strawman error on your part.
>
> You know damn well that deciders compute the mapping from their inputs
> so when you keep bringing up a non-input knowing the non-inputs are
> irrelevant you prove yourself to be a liar.
>

Since the DEFINITION of the Halting Problem directly asks about P(P) in
this context, the only way it is a strawman error is if we take this as
an admission that you are not working on the Halting Problem.

If that is the case, your answer also has no bearing on the halting
problem, and any claim that it does is a strawman error.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<Tk38K.341596$Lbb6.314050@fx45.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30700&group=comp.theory#30700

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx45.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87o80va10e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <PtGdnULu_agNDf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <PtGdnULu_agNDf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <Tk38K.341596$Lbb6.314050@fx45.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: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:30:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6366
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 02:30 UTC

On 4/20/22 7:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 4:38 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes of
>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the input to
>>>>>>> H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final state.
>>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>> You
>>>>>> pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can only assume you
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> that if you publish H the game will be well and truly up.  You
>>>>>> need to
>>>>>> trot out one of your excuses for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge it is
>>>>> because you already know that it is correct.
>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you ignore
>>>> what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think anyone will
>>>> change their option of me just because you keep typing the same vague
>>>> sentence?  And, more to the point, why do you care what people think of
>>>> me?
>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something useful
>>>> with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this forum" to
>>>> form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that important.
>>>>
>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily correct
>>>>> for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non halting.
>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.
>>>
>>> According to functional notation the inputs to a function are its
>>> parameters.
>>
>> (1) They are to H not to H(P,P).
>>
>
> In mathematics, an argument (also known as input) of a function is a
> value that must be provided to obtain the function's result. It is also
> called an independent variable. The binary function f(x,y) = x^2 + y^2
> has two arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_of_a_function
>
>> (2) Most texts will use "input" only metaphorically.  It's not a good
>>      technical term.
>>
>
> Yet since computable functions use the term "input" we must use that
> term as a bridge.
>
> If f:Σ∗ → Σ∗ is function, and ∃ a Turing machine
> which on the input w ∈ Σ∗ writes f(w), ∀w ∈ Σ∗,
> then we call f as computable function.
>
> https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2993807/what-is-a-computable-function
>
>
>> (3) This is C.  Input has a very well-defined and distinct meaning in all
>>      programming languages including C.
>>
>> Anyway, as you know I am not trying to get you to the right words.  The
>> more inappropriate words you use the less likely it is that someone will
>> take your writing seriously.
>>
>
> That a halt decider computes the mapping from its input finite strings
> to its own accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
> specified by these inputs is more technically accurate than any textbook
> ever says.
>

And the DEFINITION of the mapping a halt decider must compute given H
applied to <M> w is whether M applied to w will halt. (Dispite you
claims that this CAN'T be what is being asked).

Note, your definition ASKS if a Turing Machine exists, and that is part
of the Halting Problem, DOES a Turing Machine exists that can compute
this result.

Note, in one sense you are right, given any Turing Machine H, and the
input <M> w, it is actually impossible for H to always compute teh
correct mapping of <M> w to the correct answer of the behavior of M
applied to w, but that doesn't mean the definition of the mapping is
incorrect, it just means that the mapping is NOT a computable function.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]

<t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30701&group=comp.theory#30701

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!wvONfgmCjpyJD8XieLz90w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: anw...@cuboid.co.uk (Andy Walker)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:07:21 +0100
Organization: Not very much
Message-ID: <t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
<i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="56414"; posting-host="wvONfgmCjpyJD8XieLz90w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.7.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language: en-GB
 by: Andy Walker - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:07 UTC

On 21/04/2022 01:42, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> If you wrote a universal Turing machine, in the obvious way, that would be
> about a hundred states.

The "obvious" one given by Minsky ["Computation", p142, and also on
the front cover of my edition] has 23 states and uses six symbols; it fits
into about half a page as a well-spaced diagram. I suppose one might count
23 as "about a hundred"? It could be written as "about a hundred" lines of
code in any high-level language [or even machine code].

> It's a lot simpler than an x86 emulator, because
> the machine it is emulating is simpler. Then of course we would want to
> add infinite cycle detection logic to turn it into a halt decider.
> How complicated
> does this infinite cycle dectection logic have to be?

May be worth noting that cycle detection is essentially trivial,
if by "cycle" you mean an exact repeat. You run two parallel emulations,
one at twice the speed of the other, and compare tapes after each round
of instructions. If there is a repeat, then eventually the tapes will
compare equal. If programs were guaranteed either to halt or to cycle,
then a halt detector would be possible, and indeed rather easy to write.
Sadly, there is no such guarantee. For less rigid meanings of cycle, ...

> Maybe that's the
> question which is the key to this whole affair.

... well, yes. The problem is that there is no way, in general,
to detect whether or not a program is "making progress". There is the
further problem that it's commonly impossible to prove that a specific
problem is undecidable [eg, the Goldbach conjecture may /be/ undecidable,
as far as we know at present, but it can't be /proved/ to be so, as that
would constitute a proof that it is true, =><=], so we don't know whether
the failure of a search process is caused by there being no solutions or
by aborting the search too soon. If only we could measure progress! But
that /is/ the HP, in effect.

> I think we should also investigate the tiny UTMs with only a handful
> of states.
> We might well learn something useful there.

Tiny UTMs are certainly interesting; but AFAIK their only use
is to demonstrate that some very simple problems and situations can
have arbitrarily complex behaviour. But we already know that from the
difficulty of finding quite small Busy Beavers.

[If you think /any/ of the main contributors here will learn
something useful from these threads, then you're an incurable optimist.]

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mendelssohn

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]

<lGb8K.9457$1%.1423@fx42.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30702&group=comp.theory#30702

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!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!fx42.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com> <k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com> <875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com> <5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com> <i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com> <t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <lGb8K.9457$1%.1423@fx42.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 07:59:13 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5721
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:59 UTC

On 4/21/22 7:07 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 01:42, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> If you wrote a universal Turing machine, in the obvious way, that
>> would be
>> about  a hundred states.
>
>     The "obvious" one given by Minsky ["Computation", p142, and also on
> the front cover of my edition] has 23 states and uses six symbols;  it fits
> into about half a page as a well-spaced diagram.  I suppose one might count
> 23 as "about a hundred"?  It could be written as "about a hundred" lines of
> code in any high-level language [or even machine code].
>
>>                It's a lot simpler than an x86 emulator, because
>> the machine it is emulating is simpler. Then of course we would want to
>> add infinite cycle detection logic to turn it into a halt decider.
>> How complicated
>> does this infinite cycle dectection logic have to be?
>
>     May be worth noting that cycle detection is essentially trivial,
> if by "cycle" you mean an exact repeat.  You run two parallel emulations,
> one at twice the speed of the other, and compare tapes after each round
> of instructions.  If there is a repeat, then eventually the tapes will
> compare equal.  If programs were guaranteed either to halt or to cycle,
> then a halt detector would be possible, and indeed rather easy to write.
> Sadly, there is no such guarantee.  For less rigid meanings of cycle, ...

Yes, and that is part of the proble with PO's "proof". H^/P isn't caught
in a simple cycle, as the second point isn't being at some exact state
but down a level of simulation. It only appears to be a simply cycle by
replacing the simulation of a machine with the machine being simulated.

H can't actually do this transform, first because that means that either
the input wasn't the right machine (having been built with a different
H) or H needed to somehow identify a copy of itself.

And second, because H ISN'T just an unconditional simulator, the
transform isn't a valid one. It bakes in the assumption that this H will
never abort its simulation, when it needs to act exactly like the H
deciding, proving that either the input wasn't built right, or H fails
to be either accurate or an actual computation.

I suppose the fact that there are multiple ways for it to be wrong is
one of the tricks that PO exploits, He can correctly claim that we can't
prove the error is a specific one of these by letting it quietly be one
of the otheres.

>
>>                              Maybe that's the
>> question which is the key to this whole affair.
>
>     ... well, yes.  The problem is that there is no way, in general,
> to detect whether or not a program is "making progress".  There is the
> further problem that it's commonly impossible to prove that a specific
> problem is undecidable [eg, the Goldbach conjecture may /be/ undecidable,
> as far as we know at present, but it can't be /proved/ to be so, as that
> would constitute a proof that it is true, =><=], so we don't know whether
> the failure of a search process is caused by there being no solutions or
> by aborting the search too soon.  If only we could measure progress!  But
> that /is/ the HP, in effect.
>
>> I think we should also investigate the tiny UTMs with only a handful
>> of states.
>> We might well learn something useful there.
>
>     Tiny UTMs are certainly interesting;  but AFAIK their only use
> is to demonstrate that some very simple problems and situations can
> have arbitrarily complex behaviour.  But we already know that from the
> difficulty of finding quite small Busy Beavers.
>
>     [If you think /any/ of the main contributors here will learn
> something useful from these threads, then you're an incurable optimist.]
>

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard

<20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30703&group=comp.theory#30703

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!178.20.174.213.MISMATCH!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc.corp (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard
Message-ID: <20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<psKdncp5lM76FcL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yNS7K.88210$Kdf.60643@fx96.iad>
<20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.iad>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corporation
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 119
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:09:36 UTC
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:09:35 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 6707
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:09 UTC

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:07:18 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 4/20/22 8:15 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:13:17 -0400
> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/20/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> >>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
> >>>>>>>>>>> of machine
> >>>>>>>>>>> code...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
> >>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
> >>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final
> >>>>>>> state.
> >>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the
> >>>>>> code.  You pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can
> >>>>>> only assume you know that if you publish H the game will be
> >>>>>> well and truly up.  You need to trot out one of your excuses
> >>>>>> for keeping the flawed code secret.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
> >>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
> >>>>> it is because you already know that it is correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
> >>>> ignore what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think
> >>>> anyone will change their option of me just because you keep
> >>>> typing the same vague sentence?  And, more to the point, why do
> >>>> you care what people think of me?
> >>>>
> >>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something
> >>>> useful with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this
> >>>> forum" to form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that
> >>>> important.
> >>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
> >>>>> correct for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non
> >>>>> halting.
> >>>>
> >>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.  If you mean the two pointer
> >>>> parameters, say so.  That "input" -- those two pointers -- are
> >>>> neither halting nor non halting.  Maybe you mean calling the
> >>>> first with the second as its only argument is non halting?  If
> >>>> you do, you are (according to other posts of yours) wrong.  Say
> >>>> what you mean, or accept that honest commentators will have to
> >>>> explain your words back to you.
> >>>>
> >>>> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using
> >>>> the unclear "it" and "its".
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Second R-CHOP chemotherapy today, this time the Rituxan was well
> >>> Tolerated, The prior session I could only tolerate 10% of the full
> >>> dose. It was a 12 hour day today from when I left my house until I
> >>> returned from chemo.
> >>>
> >>> Even though all of my lymph nodes are jam packed with lymphoma so
> >>> much that the PET scan only saw continuous masses of lymphoma and
> >>> could not distinguish separated lymph nodes, my blood still does
> >>> not know that I have  cancer. Hematocrit and hemoglobin are a
> >>> litte low everything else it normal.
> >>>
> >>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is provably
> >>> non-halting is an entirely sufficient basis for H to report that
> >>> it's input is non-halting.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Except that the actual correct simulation of the input to H(P,P),
> >> when H(P,P) returns false, actually halts. You only think it
> >> doesn't because you use the wrong definiton of the correct
> >> simulation of the input, and instead look at the simulation of the
> >> input done by H, which aborts itself, and thus is NOT a correct
> >> simulation.
> >>
> >> FALSE PREMISE, UNSOUND conclusion.
> >>
> >> You just show yourself to be too dumb to see that.
> >>
> >> Maybe you are like your blood, to dumb to know there is a problem.
> >>
> >
> > Crawl back under your rock, Richard Damon.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
> >
>
> So, do you think that an aborted simulation correctly simulates the
> behavior of a program that represents the input?
>
> Strange definition of a Correct Simulation if it doesn't agree with
> the behavior of what it is simulating.
>
> That is just a fundamental error in logic and langugage.

The only egregious use of language I can see here are your insults
against Olcott.

/Flibble

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]

<e_2dnesckOt07vz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30704&group=comp.theory#30704

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:10:33 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:10:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
<i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com>
<t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <e_2dnesckOt07vz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 123
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-CGAp5GnSNdXxn/bVAKi2HA9Ab+p1jXh6WOLqZA/RcuG8rVy2TI0w16HtGlxng8+Iv0v7ZA9KdArne1q!QBrgaB21rhi6dL99aehSXwhDHBuTPxhsxu2gllh09uz4OE4VlXgCcDcRSOUXnH/V+iYvs7TCRpEu
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: 7867
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:10 UTC

On 4/21/2022 6:07 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 01:42, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> If you wrote a universal Turing machine, in the obvious way, that
>> would be
>> about  a hundred states.
>
>     The "obvious" one given by Minsky ["Computation", p142, and also on
> the front cover of my edition] has 23 states and uses six symbols;  it fits
> into about half a page as a well-spaced diagram.  I suppose one might count
> 23 as "about a hundred"?  It could be written as "about a hundred" lines of
> code in any high-level language [or even machine code].
>
>>                It's a lot simpler than an x86 emulator, because
>> the machine it is emulating is simpler. Then of course we would want to
>> add infinite cycle detection logic to turn it into a halt decider.
>> How complicated
>> does this infinite cycle dectection logic have to be?
>
>     May be worth noting that cycle detection is essentially trivial,
> if by "cycle" you mean an exact repeat.  You run two parallel emulations,
> one at twice the speed of the other, and compare tapes after each round
> of instructions.  If there is a repeat, then eventually the tapes will
> compare equal.  If programs were guaranteed either to halt or to cycle,
> then a halt detector would be possible, and indeed rather easy to write.
> Sadly, there is no such guarantee.  For less rigid meanings of cycle, ...
>
>>                              Maybe that's the
>> question which is the key to this whole affair.
>
>     ... well, yes.  The problem is that there is no way, in general,
> to detect whether or not a program is "making progress".  There is the
> further problem that it's commonly impossible to prove that a specific
> problem is undecidable [eg, the Goldbach conjecture may /be/ undecidable,
> as far as we know at present, but it can't be /proved/ to be so, as that
> would constitute a proof that it is true, =><=], so we don't know whether
> the failure of a search process is caused by there being no solutions or
> by aborting the search too soon.  If only we could measure progress!  But
> that /is/ the HP, in effect.
>
>> I think we should also investigate the tiny UTMs with only a handful
>> of states.
>> We might well learn something useful there.
>
>     Tiny UTMs are certainly interesting;  but AFAIK their only use
> is to demonstrate that some very simple problems and situations can
> have arbitrarily complex behaviour.  But we already know that from the
> difficulty of finding quite small Busy Beavers.
>
>     [If you think /any/ of the main contributors here will learn
> something useful from these threads, then you're an incurable optimist.]
>

It is the case that this refutes the halting problems proof for anyone
that is an expert on C, x86, translation of C to x86, x86 emulators,
which seems to include no one here besides me.

The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
this would be its machine address [000009f0].

The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
input would never halt H returns 0.

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

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
}

_P()
[000009d6](01) 55 push ebp
[000009d7](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000009d9](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000009dc](01) 50 push eax // push P
[000009dd](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000009e0](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826 // call H
[000009e6](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000009e9](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[000009eb](02) 7402 jz 000009ef
[000009ed](02) ebfe jmp 000009ed
[000009ef](01) 5d pop ebp
[000009f0](01) c3 ret // Final state
Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]

The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
....[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
....[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55 push ebp // enter P
....[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec mov ebp,esp
....[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
....[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50 push eax // Push P
....[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
....[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51 push ecx // Push P
....[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826 // Call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
reject this input as non-halting.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard

<rPGdnSjcmIJc6Pz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30705&group=comp.theory#30705

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:18:25 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:18:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <psKdncp5lM76FcL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yNS7K.88210$Kdf.60643@fx96.iad> <20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.iad>
<20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <rPGdnSjcmIJc6Pz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 137
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-1oH3OQ4kbJsC8Jf9SvgCFwrrkSwZNawrxwivgL21BAJ04u1ptAdnu84SymaeU3fquEuqgphcc2ofzzW!tyJfHLem7QAnkbxs+4HAHaCFRPJJqYfiMzajSTlXgMZUO5RnGf7AKUjw2TKjxPO5+szHi0990ga/
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: 7865
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:18 UTC

On 4/21/2022 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:07:18 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/22 8:15 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:13:17 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the
>>>>>>>> code.  You pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can
>>>>>>>> only assume you know that if you publish H the game will be
>>>>>>>> well and truly up.  You need to trot out one of your excuses
>>>>>>>> for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>>>> it is because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>>> ignore what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think
>>>>>> anyone will change their option of me just because you keep
>>>>>> typing the same vague sentence?  And, more to the point, why do
>>>>>> you care what people think of me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something
>>>>>> useful with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this
>>>>>> forum" to form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that
>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>>> correct for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non
>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.  If you mean the two pointer
>>>>>> parameters, say so.  That "input" -- those two pointers -- are
>>>>>> neither halting nor non halting.  Maybe you mean calling the
>>>>>> first with the second as its only argument is non halting?  If
>>>>>> you do, you are (according to other posts of yours) wrong.  Say
>>>>>> what you mean, or accept that honest commentators will have to
>>>>>> explain your words back to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using
>>>>>> the unclear "it" and "its".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second R-CHOP chemotherapy today, this time the Rituxan was well
>>>>> Tolerated, The prior session I could only tolerate 10% of the full
>>>>> dose. It was a 12 hour day today from when I left my house until I
>>>>> returned from chemo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though all of my lymph nodes are jam packed with lymphoma so
>>>>> much that the PET scan only saw continuous masses of lymphoma and
>>>>> could not distinguish separated lymph nodes, my blood still does
>>>>> not know that I have  cancer. Hematocrit and hemoglobin are a
>>>>> litte low everything else it normal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is provably
>>>>> non-halting is an entirely sufficient basis for H to report that
>>>>> it's input is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that the actual correct simulation of the input to H(P,P),
>>>> when H(P,P) returns false, actually halts. You only think it
>>>> doesn't because you use the wrong definiton of the correct
>>>> simulation of the input, and instead look at the simulation of the
>>>> input done by H, which aborts itself, and thus is NOT a correct
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>> FALSE PREMISE, UNSOUND conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> You just show yourself to be too dumb to see that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you are like your blood, to dumb to know there is a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Crawl back under your rock, Richard Damon.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, do you think that an aborted simulation correctly simulates the
>> behavior of a program that represents the input?
>>
>> Strange definition of a Correct Simulation if it doesn't agree with
>> the behavior of what it is simulating.
>>
>> That is just a fundamental error in logic and langugage.
>
> The only egregious use of language I can see here are your insults
> against Olcott.
>
> /Flibble
>

If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is verified to be non-halting
then when H reports that its input is non-halting it is necessarily
correct and nothing in the universe can possibly correctly contradict this.

If {an X is a Y} then when Z reports that {an X is a Y} it is
necessarily correct.

If {the input to H(P,P) is non-halting} then when H reports that
{the input to H(P,P) is non-halting} it is necessarily correct.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard

<Ipf8K.59769$r_.58807@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30706&group=comp.theory#30706

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx41.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ee1zsjne.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <psKdncp5lM76FcL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<yNS7K.88210$Kdf.60643@fx96.iad> <20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
<q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.iad>
<20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <Ipf8K.59769$r_.58807@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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:14:31 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 7733
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:14 UTC

On 4/21/22 10:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:07:18 -0400
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/22 8:15 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:13:17 -0400
>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final
>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the
>>>>>>>> code.  You pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can
>>>>>>>> only assume you know that if you publish H the game will be
>>>>>>>> well and truly up.  You need to trot out one of your excuses
>>>>>>>> for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>>>> it is because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>>> ignore what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think
>>>>>> anyone will change their option of me just because you keep
>>>>>> typing the same vague sentence?  And, more to the point, why do
>>>>>> you care what people think of me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something
>>>>>> useful with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this
>>>>>> forum" to form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that
>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>>> correct for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non
>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.  If you mean the two pointer
>>>>>> parameters, say so.  That "input" -- those two pointers -- are
>>>>>> neither halting nor non halting.  Maybe you mean calling the
>>>>>> first with the second as its only argument is non halting?  If
>>>>>> you do, you are (according to other posts of yours) wrong.  Say
>>>>>> what you mean, or accept that honest commentators will have to
>>>>>> explain your words back to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using
>>>>>> the unclear "it" and "its".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second R-CHOP chemotherapy today, this time the Rituxan was well
>>>>> Tolerated, The prior session I could only tolerate 10% of the full
>>>>> dose. It was a 12 hour day today from when I left my house until I
>>>>> returned from chemo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even though all of my lymph nodes are jam packed with lymphoma so
>>>>> much that the PET scan only saw continuous masses of lymphoma and
>>>>> could not distinguish separated lymph nodes, my blood still does
>>>>> not know that I have  cancer. Hematocrit and hemoglobin are a
>>>>> litte low everything else it normal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is provably
>>>>> non-halting is an entirely sufficient basis for H to report that
>>>>> it's input is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that the actual correct simulation of the input to H(P,P),
>>>> when H(P,P) returns false, actually halts. You only think it
>>>> doesn't because you use the wrong definiton of the correct
>>>> simulation of the input, and instead look at the simulation of the
>>>> input done by H, which aborts itself, and thus is NOT a correct
>>>> simulation.
>>>>
>>>> FALSE PREMISE, UNSOUND conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> You just show yourself to be too dumb to see that.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you are like your blood, to dumb to know there is a problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Crawl back under your rock, Richard Damon.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, do you think that an aborted simulation correctly simulates the
>> behavior of a program that represents the input?
>>
>> Strange definition of a Correct Simulation if it doesn't agree with
>> the behavior of what it is simulating.
>>
>> That is just a fundamental error in logic and langugage.
>
> The only egregious use of language I can see here are your insults
> against Olcott.
>
> /Flibble
>

If that is your level of reading comprehension, then I can not help you
and will let the rest of the world, and God, be the judge, that honestly
looks at the whole discussion.

Olcott started it, just search back for when he started pulling out the
quotes from Revalation, and his comments about the lack of the skill of
other.

Now, if you believe his crap, then your mental state is just as impaired
and there may be no hope for you. Sorry, my condolances to your family
and acquaintances. (And from your posting history, this may well be the
case).

If you wish, you can just choose to join him in the doom of history, at
least he seems to be willing to use a Real Name, and not hide behind a
pseudonym.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard

<Muf8K.1380$E3G.724@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30707&group=comp.theory#30707

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!81.171.65.16.MISMATCH!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,_Dennis,_Richard
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <q76dnVaeIav7y8X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <8735ifs7vo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YrGdnXX-0dGzAMX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87lew7qk6k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <P82dncVZ0YIPJMX_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87a6cmr2ii.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <aa2dnVZdvrlOFMT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuaungw7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <psKdncp5lM76FcL_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <yNS7K.88210$Kdf.60643@fx96.iad> <20220420131504.00007b6d@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <q%28K.601809$mF2.500583@fx11.iad> <20220421150935.00005979@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <rPGdnSjcmIJc6Pz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <rPGdnSjcmIJc6Pz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 150
Message-ID: <Muf8K.1380$E3G.724@fx06.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:19:55 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8426
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:19 UTC

On 4/21/22 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 9:09 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 22:07:18 -0400
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/20/22 8:15 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 08:13:17 -0400
>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/22 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 9:49 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2022 4:53 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 6:43 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 10:20 AM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I was wrong then the correct simulation of the 27 bytes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were right you'd publish the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only relevant code to the question does the
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated input to H(P,P) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly not.  The code for P is not in doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then you must agree that when H correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) that it would never reach its own final
>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>> Deflection.  As I said, if you were right you'd publish the
>>>>>>>>> code.  You pointlessly showed P which is not in doubt.  I can
>>>>>>>>> only assume you know that if you publish H the game will be
>>>>>>>>> well and truly up.  You need to trot out one of your excuses
>>>>>>>>> for keeping the flawed code secret.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am going to continue to present this same point until everyone
>>>>>>>> reading this forum realizes that the only reason that you dodge
>>>>>>>> it is because you already know that it is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone here has seen me address it many times and has seen you
>>>>>>> ignore what I've said about it many times.  Do you really think
>>>>>>> anyone will change their option of me just because you keep
>>>>>>> typing the same vague sentence?  And, more to the point, why do
>>>>>>> you care what people think of me?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you need is someone you trust to tell you to do something
>>>>>>> useful with your time, not some way to get "everyone reading this
>>>>>>> forum" to form your preferred opinion of me.  I am not that
>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>> When the input to H(P,P) is non halting then it is necessarily
>>>>>>>> correct for H to report that the input to H(P,P) is non
>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On more time: H(P,P) has no input.  If you mean the two pointer
>>>>>>> parameters, say so.  That "input" -- those two pointers -- are
>>>>>>> neither halting nor non halting.  Maybe you mean calling the
>>>>>>> first with the second as its only argument is non halting?  If
>>>>>>> you do, you are (according to other posts of yours) wrong.  Say
>>>>>>> what you mean, or accept that honest commentators will have to
>>>>>>> explain your words back to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least you've removed the "would" and you have stopped using
>>>>>>> the unclear "it" and "its".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second R-CHOP chemotherapy today, this time the Rituxan was well
>>>>>> Tolerated, The prior session I could only tolerate 10% of the full
>>>>>> dose. It was a 12 hour day today from when I left my house until I
>>>>>> returned from chemo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even though all of my lymph nodes are jam packed with lymphoma so
>>>>>> much that the PET scan only saw continuous masses of lymphoma and
>>>>>> could not distinguish separated lymph nodes, my blood still does
>>>>>> not know that I have  cancer. Hematocrit and hemoglobin are a
>>>>>> litte low everything else it normal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is provably
>>>>>> non-halting is an entirely sufficient basis for H to report that
>>>>>> it's input is non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that the actual correct simulation of the input to H(P,P),
>>>>> when H(P,P) returns false, actually halts. You only think it
>>>>> doesn't because you use the wrong definiton of the correct
>>>>> simulation of the input, and instead look at the simulation of the
>>>>> input done by H, which aborts itself, and thus is NOT a correct
>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> FALSE PREMISE, UNSOUND conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just show yourself to be too dumb to see that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you are like your blood, to dumb to know there is a problem.
>>>> Crawl back under your rock, Richard Damon.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, do you think that an aborted simulation correctly simulates the
>>> behavior of a program that represents the input?
>>>
>>> Strange definition of a Correct Simulation if it doesn't agree with
>>> the behavior of what it is simulating.
>>>
>>> That is just a fundamental error in logic and langugage.
>>
>> The only egregious use of language I can see here are your insults
>> against Olcott.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> If the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) is verified to be non-halting
> then when H reports that its input is non-halting it is necessarily
> correct and nothing in the universe can possibly correctly contradict this.

*IF* Since it isn't, the logic is unsound.

The CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) by the DEFINITION of the
Halting problem must match the behavior of P(P) which Halts if H(P,P)
returns (incorrectly) false.

And, to use your words, there is nothing in the universe that can
possibly correctly contradict this.

Your claim is conditioned on a false premise (since the correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) has NOT be verified to be noo-halting)
thus your conclusion is not established.

MY premise is based on FACT and has been proven, and no refutation has
been really attempted.

>
> If {an X is a Y} then when Z reports that {an X is a Y} it is
> necessarily correct.

Yes an X, the correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) is a Y, a
Halting Computation, then for Z (that is H) to be correct, it needs to
report that.

>
> If {the input to H(P,P) is non-halting} then when H reports that
> {the input to H(P,P) is non-halting} it is necessarily correct.
>

Well, since (the input to H(P,P) is non-halting) is NOT correct if
H(P,P) returns false, your whole logic has become unsound.

FAIL.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]

<ozf8K.858084$aT3.787203@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30708&group=comp.theory#30708

 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!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: [...]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<311229e2-085c-403e-b686-ad3b191e394an@googlegroups.com>
<5oOdnUUNirgXAf3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<39402117-228c-4ce6-9363-4b632256e549n@googlegroups.com>
<i9edne9z1uCYPv3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3f29d90c-af85-49f9-96b7-0aa6a5dc0f01n@googlegroups.com>
<t3rdt9$1n2u$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<e_2dnesckOt07vz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <e_2dnesckOt07vz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <ozf8K.858084$aT3.787203@fx09.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:24:51 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 8684
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:24 UTC

On 4/21/22 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 6:07 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 21/04/2022 01:42, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> If you wrote a universal Turing machine, in the obvious way, that
>>> would be
>>> about  a hundred states.
>>
>>      The "obvious" one given by Minsky ["Computation", p142, and also on
>> the front cover of my edition] has 23 states and uses six symbols;  it
>> fits
>> into about half a page as a well-spaced diagram.  I suppose one might
>> count
>> 23 as "about a hundred"?  It could be written as "about a hundred"
>> lines of
>> code in any high-level language [or even machine code].
>>
>>>                It's a lot simpler than an x86 emulator, because
>>> the machine it is emulating is simpler. Then of course we would want to
>>> add infinite cycle detection logic to turn it into a halt decider.
>>> How complicated
>>> does this infinite cycle dectection logic have to be?
>>
>>      May be worth noting that cycle detection is essentially trivial,
>> if by "cycle" you mean an exact repeat.  You run two parallel emulations,
>> one at twice the speed of the other, and compare tapes after each round
>> of instructions.  If there is a repeat, then eventually the tapes will
>> compare equal.  If programs were guaranteed either to halt or to cycle,
>> then a halt detector would be possible, and indeed rather easy to write.
>> Sadly, there is no such guarantee.  For less rigid meanings of cycle, ...
>>
>>>                              Maybe that's the
>>> question which is the key to this whole affair.
>>
>>      ... well, yes.  The problem is that there is no way, in general,
>> to detect whether or not a program is "making progress".  There is the
>> further problem that it's commonly impossible to prove that a specific
>> problem is undecidable [eg, the Goldbach conjecture may /be/ undecidable,
>> as far as we know at present, but it can't be /proved/ to be so, as that
>> would constitute a proof that it is true, =><=], so we don't know whether
>> the failure of a search process is caused by there being no solutions or
>> by aborting the search too soon.  If only we could measure progress!  But
>> that /is/ the HP, in effect.
>>
>>> I think we should also investigate the tiny UTMs with only a handful
>>> of states.
>>> We might well learn something useful there.
>>
>>      Tiny UTMs are certainly interesting;  but AFAIK their only use
>> is to demonstrate that some very simple problems and situations can
>> have arbitrarily complex behaviour.  But we already know that from the
>> difficulty of finding quite small Busy Beavers.
>>
>>      [If you think /any/ of the main contributors here will learn
>> something useful from these threads, then you're an incurable optimist.]
>>
>
> It is the case that this refutes the halting problems proof for anyone
> that is an expert on C, x86, translation of C to x86, x86 emulators,
> which seems to include no one here besides me.

Wrong/

>
> The technical computer science term "halt" means that a program will
> reach its last instruction technically called its final state. For P
> this would be its machine address [000009f0].

Right, when you RUN P, not partially simualte it.

>
> The function named H continues to simulate its input using an x86
> emulator until this input either halts on its own or H detects that it
> would never halt. If its input halts H returns 1. If H detects that its
> input would never halt H returns 0.
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>   if (H(x, x))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> _P()
> [000009d6](01) 55         push ebp
> [000009d7](02) 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [000009d9](03) 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [000009dc](01) 50         push eax         // push P
> [000009dd](03) 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [000009e0](01) 51         push ecx         // push P
> [000009e1](05) e840feffff call 00000826    // call H
> [000009e6](03) 83c408     add esp,+08
> [000009e9](02) 85c0       test eax,eax
> [000009eb](02) 7402       jz 000009ef
> [000009ed](02) ebfe       jmp 000009ed
> [000009ef](01) 5d         pop ebp
> [000009f0](01) c3         ret              // Final state
> Size in bytes:(0027) [000009f0]
>
> The simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its own final state
> of [000009f0] it keeps repeating [000009d6] to [000009e1] until aborted.
>
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
> ...[000009d6][00211368][0021136c] 55         push ebp         // enter P
> ...[000009d7][00211368][0021136c] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[000009d9][00211368][0021136c] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009dc][00211364][000009d6] 50         push eax         // Push P
> ...[000009dd][00211364][000009d6] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009e0][00211360][000009d6] 51         push ecx         // Push P
> ...[000009e1][0021135c][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826    // Call H
> ...[000009d6][0025bd90][0025bd94] 55         push ebp         // enter P
> ...[000009d7][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[000009d9][0025bd90][0025bd94] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009dc][0025bd8c][000009d6] 50         push eax         // Push P
> ...[000009dd][0025bd8c][000009d6] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[000009e0][0025bd88][000009d6] 51         push ecx         // Push P
> ...[000009e1][0025bd84][000009e6] e840feffff call 00000826    // Call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Thus showing this is NOT a "Correct Simulation" of P, as a correct
simulation doesn't abort in the middle.

This is the PARTIAL simulation of H, showing that H will return false,
and thus we can deduce the correct simulation/execution of P.

It will do the
add esp, +08
test eax. eax // This will set the Zero flag
jz 000009ef // This will jump
proceeding to
pop ebp
ret // thus returning to the caller
// and showing P is halting

>
> Because the correctly simulated input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach
> its own final state at [000009f0] it is necessarily correct for H to
> reject this input as non-halting.
>

You have your definition wrong.

You did NOT provide a CORRECT simulation of the input, but the behavior
of H on the input.

Wrong defintion, wrong answer, invalid logic.

FAIL.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30711&group=comp.theory#30711

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:08:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="16560"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19f23YTOaEveMi4fSLBYPi0Tsbt7ux3L0A="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qu1zF8DYH491Ip9e0Gw1GN2Lf1c=
sha1:ET8EDC37D6KK7PZ2tRoRrYfU3UY=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.ec13542c893b4ad0d0bc.20220421190838BST.87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:08 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>
>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>> machine address [000009f0].
>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>> have left...
>
> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
> besides me.

So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
with people you think are liars? Let me guess...

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30712&group=comp.theory#30712

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:20:49 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:20:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 62
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-cxyxRCCeIM3VIt1M7058BQ06PwHZV4bz0xQk8GNF+Ly6x95K04mQeSjXgq8z+0AZRbL3O5I4SiIzpup!5RF3A9fVe0bW7TzJweVqETpJ2Uek+IukvaJVyaRytm3a4SRIfLBKGj5Ig89NDau0301avj1FucGf
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: 4907
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:20 UTC

On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>
>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>> have left...
>>
>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>> besides me.
>
> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>

That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
about the x86 language is still a lie.

The proof that this is a lie is that none of the "rebuttals" address my
airtight proof that I am correct, they simply dodged what I said
completely and continue to assert that a decider must compute the
mapping from a non-input even though they already know that a decider is
not allowed to compute a mapping from a non-input thus again another lie.

None-the-less most everyone here has been very helpful in providing
feedback so that I could increasingly make my words much more clear.

Now that I have proved my point with verifiable facts and they have
responded to disagreeing with these verifiable facts is a bit annoying,
yet of no great consequence.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<3Bh8K.858094$aT3.523173@fx09.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30715&group=comp.theory#30715

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <3Bh8K.858094$aT3.523173@fx09.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:43:10 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5626
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:43 UTC

On 4/21/22 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>>>>>>>>> But I'm
>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the
>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous.  Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.  But you reject that and
>>>>>> anyway
>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean.  I prefer
>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers.  Go on, explain it -- what does
>>>>>> it mean
>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>> So you won't say?  That figures.  Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>> have left...
>>>
>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>> besides me.
>>
>> So what now?  Publish?  Fame?  Fortune?  Or keep posting here to chat
>> with people you think are liars?  Let me guess...
>>
>
> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
> about the x86 language is still a lie.

That is a LIE. Peope DO know about the x86 assembly language, and can
tell you that the snippet you have claimed as you proof isn't a compete
program, and thus doesn't have defined behavior.

>
> The proof that this is a lie is that none of the "rebuttals" address my
> airtight proof that I am correct, they simply dodged what I said
> completely and continue to assert that a decider must compute the
> mapping from a non-input even though they already know that a decider is
> not allowed to compute a mapping from a non-input thus again another lie.

No, you lie. You proof is NOT "Air tight" but is based on FALSE
definition and UNSOUND logic.

Yes, a decider must map from its input, which for your Turing Machine is
the string that is symbolized as <H^> <H^>, meaning the representation
of the Turing Macine H^ twice. We need to actually have defined the code
of H^ to generate that representation.

This input string IS the input and the mapping needs to be computed
based on the actual behavior specified by it.

THe fact that H can't ACTUALLY compute that behavior, just shows that
the mapping isn't computable, not that the mapping is improperly defined.

>
> None-the-less most everyone here has been very helpful in providing
> feedback so that I could increasingly make my words much more clear.
>
> Now that I have proved my point with verifiable facts and they have
> responded to disagreeing with these verifiable facts is a bit annoying,
> yet of no great consequence.
>

So publish?

Would love to hear how loudly they laugh.

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30722&group=comp.theory#30722

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:10:37 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="12386"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19geNvPD9CxDYlCTe41HeuVSPCeIG48PHE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zY8nqBk/+ZlRk0cKLQf5a8D6RxE=
sha1:Wgup4pjAQMa5rs3sMuvZVAIjjr4=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.2b9bb609d829ce51ae7b.20220421201037BST.877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:10 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>> have left...
>>>
>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>> besides me.
>>
>> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
>> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>
> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
> about the x86 language is still a lie.

It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
now?". I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.

Unbelievably it appears to be to continue to chat away with this bunch
of ignorant liars. How do you think that will help other than satisfy
your apparent desire which is to be chat about your "discoveries"?

You pretend to want to publish and be famous, but even you should be
able to see that talking to a bunch of ignorant lairs isn't going to
help you. In fact, it makes your supposed intent seem less that honest.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30723&group=comp.theory#30723

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:22:18 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:22:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 82
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-G2njpQn639YF4ZKuT063ndUhKm9Yej+SZNlCEEqVq4MtOfMFJub+RdLMRgZ5HJkj0RKgLgDm1FB/fG4!XGpgeuuQldmiH5DCoTTo5Z3Nio34KOc7uNYHB5tBlI+LxTB2X0k5IAWqHth8bKkAPAMX9gQl36eA
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: 5727
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:22 UTC

On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>> have left...
>>>>
>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>> besides me.
>>>
>>> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
>>> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>>
>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>
> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
> now?". I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>

Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers accept
that I am correct.

HERE IS THE INTRO:
To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
the halting problem is required.

> Unbelievably it appears to be to continue to chat away with this bunch
> of ignorant liars. How do you think that will help other than satisfy
> your apparent desire which is to be chat about your "discoveries"?
>

I was aiming for the point where my words become so clear that even my
lying reviewers won't lie because it will be far too obvious that they
are lying making their lie unbearably denigrating to themselves.

> You pretend to want to publish and be famous, but even you should be
> able to see that talking to a bunch of ignorant lairs isn't going to
> help you. In fact, it makes your supposed intent seem less that honest.
>

The fact that it has helped tremendously proves that it was always a
good idea.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<ZPudndXEqM3dKfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30724&group=comp.theory#30724

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Followup: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:45:03 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:45:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory
In-Reply-To: <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <ZPudndXEqM3dKfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 103
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Cd5DnHtIqav1PjZ9cKyGxYsVFsRVaKqdtqJDw9/rD4+QVrl6Upoj4GQIiHUQxYjrGmEnJuFDdYI43RA!7nvKLU+igFjF3WXG1LomjXdfGTlU5JiM3yLmMkCPUHBf5nX7Je60hW1aAKuVAXOtHUliIOedgr8b
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: 6584
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:45 UTC

On 4/21/2022 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve
>>>>>>>>>>> the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous.  Some people have determined (by
>>>>>>>> guessing)
>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.  But you reject that and
>>>>>>>> anyway
>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean.  I
>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying
>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers.  Go on, explain it -- what does
>>>>>>>> it mean
>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>> So you won't say?  That figures.  Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>> besides me.
>>>>
>>>> So what now?  Publish?  Fame?  Fortune?  Or keep posting here to chat
>>>> with people you think are liars?  Let me guess...
>>>
>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>
>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>> now?".  I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>>
>
> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers accept
> that I am correct.
>
> HERE IS THE INTRO:
> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
> the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
> translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
> the halting problem is required.
>
>> Unbelievably it appears to be to continue to chat away with this bunch
>> of ignorant liars.  How do you think that will help other than satisfy
>> your apparent desire which is to be chat about your "discoveries"?
>>
>
> I was aiming for the point where my words become so clear that even my
> lying reviewers won't lie because it will be far too obvious that they
> are lying making their lie unbearably denigrating to themselves.
>
>> You pretend to want to publish and be famous, but even you should be
>> able to see that talking to a bunch of ignorant lairs isn't going to
>> help you.  In fact, it makes your supposed intent seem less that honest.
>>
>
> The fact that it has helped tremendously proves that it was always a
> good idea.
>

If we merely eliminate all of the reviews of my work on comp.theory my
current paper or anything remotely as good would have been infeasible.

Most of the reviewers did initially have a much better understanding of
the halting problem than I had. In the last month or two places have
switched.

A halt decider computes the mapping from its input finite strings to its
own accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior of its
correctly simulated input.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<0xi8K.88726$Kdf.77600@fx96.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30725&group=comp.theory#30725

 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!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx96.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <0xi8K.88726$Kdf.77600@fx96.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:47:09 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5902
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 19:47 UTC

On 4/21/22 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to
>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve
>>>>>>>>>>> the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous.  Some people have determined (by
>>>>>>>> guessing)
>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.  But you reject that and
>>>>>>>> anyway
>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean.  I
>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying
>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers.  Go on, explain it -- what does
>>>>>>>> it mean
>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>> So you won't say?  That figures.  Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>> besides me.
>>>>
>>>> So what now?  Publish?  Fame?  Fortune?  Or keep posting here to chat
>>>> with people you think are liars?  Let me guess...
>>>
>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>
>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>> now?".  I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>>
>
> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers accept
> that I am correct.

Good luck.

>
> HERE IS THE INTRO:
> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert in
> the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly how C
> translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No knowledge of
> the halting problem is required.

Which will be a RED FLAG that this paper actually doesn't talk about
computation Theory.

>
>> Unbelievably it appears to be to continue to chat away with this bunch
>> of ignorant liars.  How do you think that will help other than satisfy
>> your apparent desire which is to be chat about your "discoveries"?
>>
>
> I was aiming for the point where my words become so clear that even my
> lying reviewers won't lie because it will be far too obvious that they
> are lying making their lie unbearably denigrating to themselves.

Since LIES are on your side, you have a problem here.

>
>> You pretend to want to publish and be famous, but even you should be
>> able to see that talking to a bunch of ignorant lairs isn't going to
>> help you.  In fact, it makes your supposed intent seem less that honest.
>>
>
> The fact that it has helped tremendously proves that it was always a
> good idea.
>

Waiting with baited breath to hear the journal response.

Best hope is to aim for the April 1st edition.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<2Si8K.2$gqG3.0@fx08.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30726&group=comp.theory#30726

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ZPudndXEqM3dKfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <ZPudndXEqM3dKfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <2Si8K.2$gqG3.0@fx08.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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:09:34 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6896
 by: Richard Damon - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:09 UTC

On 4/21/22 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 2:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input
>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve
>>>>>>>>>>>> the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO
>>>>>>>>>> AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous.  Some people have determined (by
>>>>>>>>> guessing)
>>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting.  But you reject that
>>>>>>>>> and anyway
>>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean.  I
>>>>>>>>> prefer
>>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying
>>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers.  Go on, explain it -- what
>>>>>>>>> does it mean
>>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>>> So you won't say?  That figures.  Not saying what you mean is all
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very
>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>>> besides me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what now?  Publish?  Fame?  Fortune?  Or keep posting here to chat
>>>>> with people you think are liars?  Let me guess...
>>>>
>>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>>
>>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>>> now?".  I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>>>
>>
>> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers
>> accept that I am correct.
>>
>> HERE IS THE INTRO:
>> To fully understand this paper a software engineer must be an expert
>> in the C programming language, the x86 programming language, exactly
>> how C translates into x86 and what an x86 process emulator is. No
>> knowledge of the halting problem is required.
>>
>>> Unbelievably it appears to be to continue to chat away with this bunch
>>> of ignorant liars.  How do you think that will help other than satisfy
>>> your apparent desire which is to be chat about your "discoveries"?
>>>
>>
>> I was aiming for the point where my words become so clear that even my
>> lying reviewers won't lie because it will be far too obvious that they
>> are lying making their lie unbearably denigrating to themselves.
>>
>>> You pretend to want to publish and be famous, but even you should be
>>> able to see that talking to a bunch of ignorant lairs isn't going to
>>> help you.  In fact, it makes your supposed intent seem less that honest.
>>>
>>
>> The fact that it has helped tremendously proves that it was always a
>> good idea.
>>
>
> If we merely eliminate all of the reviews of my work on comp.theory my
> current paper or anything remotely as good would have been infeasible.
>
> Most of the reviewers did initially have a much better understanding of
> the halting problem than I had. In the last month or two places have
> switched.
>
> A halt decider computes the mapping from its input finite strings to its
> own accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior of its
> correctly simulated input.
>

And the CORRECTLY simulated input to H will do the opposite of what H
answers, if it answers, or you aren't doing a CORRECT simulation or LIED
about setting up the problem correctly.

Note, a CORRECT simulaition of the input must match the behavior of the
computation the input represents, and can't 'abort' since the
computation the input represents doesn't just "blow up" or stall.

It doesn't matter that you think this can't be the correct simulation of
the input because it uses a "non-input", that just shows your ignorance
of the definitons of the field.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30727&group=comp.theory#30727

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ben.use...@bsb.me.uk (Ben)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:25:28 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
<87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="24515"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19M3D9h5gtSzd1zwVTZMKOWH1Yxqhk2OYU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i65YRSsT0jy7HCUKpKhMoawswp4=
sha1:3vF1JVej58bcNX8uH0w/HAYwjds=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.925d829aea7059701302.20220421212528BST.871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:25 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>> besides me.
>>>>
>>>> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
>>>> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>>>
>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>
>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>> now?". I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>
> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers
> accept that I am correct.

Odd. I thought you'd rather publish and be famous than waste time
here with what you consider ignorant liars. But it's your time... I
suppose after 18 years, what's a few more.

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30732&group=comp.theory#30732

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:46:22 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:46:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-f6X7U6yqB/pfK1bBkRks07eT0saEGVvbZ3zgo2mWipYMua3vsiCOYCMNxN5c8awHcR4tFQppuNJkes+!uZm65m7tvcafGaNhiyg/hL8wIJYjk7ZG0oPS4IgnoixViLsgt956qua1rOk4fpetPKFHD3Lsr3Zy
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: 5091
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:46 UTC

On 4/21/2022 3:25 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>>> besides me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
>>>>> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>>>>
>>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>>
>>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>>> now?". I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>>
>> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers
>> accept that I am correct.
>
> Odd. I thought you'd rather publish and be famous than waste time
> here with what you consider ignorant liars. But it's your time... I
> suppose after 18 years, what's a few more.
>

Read my addendum.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<wvidnb4eZ86MVPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30735&group=comp.theory#30735

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:13:53 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:13:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_Dishonest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike
,_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <wvidnb4eZ86MVPz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 72
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-nLJ8oI6BhjmjbvJ8ouaWQgyeXaUdteB7YaPjoNdGmzjmJIllD3J6WhzKKQUvkxMsEwAJs3POznWVnn/!4aoHySG0e82IFQvORbAZvpw6i3Jb33sO4M9TLHVjQ82M8fVxrpZ2CEmugFY/MdAmmz3UPsqXjsep
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: 5276
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:13 UTC

On 4/21/2022 3:25 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 4/21/2022 2:10 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:08 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 7:17 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 4:46 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 3:24 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that P(P) halts, but the correctly simulated input to H(P,P)
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt. You've been pretty consistent on this point. But I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> still mystified. I've made a suggestion that might resolve the obvious
>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction, but it hasn't been accepted.
>>>>>>>>>>> PO has reached the stage where his only option is to be unclear.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THAT YOU SAY THIS IS UNCLEAR IS A FALSEHOOD IT HAS ZERO AMBIGUITY:
>>>>>>>>> Of course it's ambiguous. Some people have determined (by guessing)
>>>>>>>>> that you mean that P(P) is non halting. But you reject that and anyway
>>>>>>>>> you tell us that P(P) halts so that can't be what you mean. I prefer
>>>>>>>>> not to guess because I think you are deliberately not saying what you
>>>>>>>>> mean by simulating two pointers. Go on, explain it -- what does it mean
>>>>>>>>> to simulate the two pointers P and P?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulated input to H(P,P) never reaches its last instruction at
>>>>>>>> machine address [000009f0].
>>>>>>> So you won't say? That figures. Not saying what you mean is all you
>>>>>>> have left...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have already fully proved my point to everyone that is very familiar
>>>>>> with the interface between C and x86 which is apparently no one here
>>>>>> besides me.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what now? Publish? Fame? Fortune? Or keep posting here to chat
>>>>> with people you think are liars? Let me guess...
>>>>
>>>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>>>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>>>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>>>
>>> It seems you won't address even a simple question put to you like "what
>>> now?". I know you think everyone here is ignorant and deliberately
>>> lying, but since that is your view I wonder what your plan is.
>>
>> Continue to refine my words until one or more qualified reviewers
>> accept that I am correct.
>
> Odd. I thought you'd rather publish and be famous than waste time
> here with what you consider ignorant liars. But it's your time... I
> suppose after 18 years, what's a few more.
>

I also stated in my addendum that if we simply removed my reviews on
comp.theory as if I never received these reviews then nothing close to
my current level of progress would have been feasible.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<t3sii7$oil$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30737&group=comp.theory#30737

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: agis...@gm.invalid (André G. Isaak)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:32:52 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <t3sii7$oil$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:32:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="502211014d63705e6d19bea2d183cdff";
logging-data="25173"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19So0Y65s7NVDZU84wlUIp7"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lVsqwAfuOhmXZtrp5FQ+GbbKGeA=
In-Reply-To: <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:32 UTC

On 2022-04-21 12:20, olcott wrote:

> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
> about the x86 language is still a lie.

The "x86 language" (which doesn't even exist) has no relevance to
computational theory.

> The proof that this is a lie is that none of the "rebuttals" address my
> airtight proof that I am correct, they simply dodged what I said
> completely and continue to assert that a decider must compute the
> mapping from a non-input even though they already know that a decider is
> not allowed to compute a mapping from a non-input thus again another lie.

All your nonsense about "non-inputs" simply belies your continual
misunderstanding of what Turing Machines are and how they actually work.
In particular, you seem to have no grasp of the distinction between
Turing Machines and the functions they compute and how those two things
are related.

Ben tried very patiently to step you through some examples of very
simple Turing Machines in an effort to get you to construct some but you
declined to follow through with this.

Here's a question for you: If someone claimed to have spent 18 years
studying K&R C but gave up in frustration when tasked with writing a
simple C program to identify even numbers, would you accept their claim
to be an expert on the C language?

Yet you have asserted on numerous occasions to have a better
understanding of both Turing Machines and the halting problem than
anyone else here despite being unable to construct even a trivially
simple TM and despite making all sorts of unsupported claims about TMs
needing a gazillion steps to perform relatively straightforward tasks.

Reading /about/ Turing Machines isn't how you actually gain a complete
understanding of what they are and how they work. That's would you would
call 'learning by rote'. If you want to really understand them you need
to actually get your hands dirty and work with some real, fully
implemented TMs.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30738&group=comp.theory#30738

 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)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike,
Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:33:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<877d7i5k2a.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<GNWdncXHybl3M_z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<871qxq5glj.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<i6ednYAwLs0DX_z_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0edf30fb0378872d2392a90a7cc48d20";
logging-data="21376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qw+9h7WjvhgQ6hpt/NGsy3nbQQfhwHRo="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UFsqdy6LssR6L3G77odIOEhFF88=
sha1:TmLUpJvHdzkVnul6L27JYVRa61w=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.796fa985626007384192.20220421223324BST.87v8v23yvv.fsf@bsb.me.uk
 by: Ben - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 21:33 UTC

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> Read my addendum.

You haven't cited anyone without their permission have you?

--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)

Re: My honest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard [ continue to lie ]

<7_adnYqTXbPNSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=30742&group=comp.theory#30742

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:01:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:01:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re:_My_honest_reviewers:_André,_Ben,_Mike,
_Dennis,_Richard_[_continue_to_lie_]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v6idnaCJifSVTtT_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<beqdnWviEc-fcsT_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zgkkldog.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<w9-dnZOcu_m09Mb_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <87y203ka8o.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<DbGdnd1PJsR0rsH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <87o80zi8dy.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<tfidnSG6b5yyN8H_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <877d7mf47m.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<is2dnfjjo6EpcMD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878rs1dt6y.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
<6bKdnUiZaaX12f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9c20d915-4206-49d5-87c2-288881fc6c72n@googlegroups.com>
<k_CdnYInWIAI0f3_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<b43fb22c-3d19-4add-8a00-a34f0d6588b6n@googlegroups.com>
<875yn3bizy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Z-udnV7hMt3B8_3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87ilr3a0nf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <VOidnWT1aM1QDv3_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87fsm78f3g.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <i9edne5z1uDAOf3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<87czha5mxl.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <RPudnZmn_5gcPfz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t3sii7$oil$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <t3sii7$oil$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <7_adnYqTXbPNSfz_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-eWFYR9pO9FKZghOo0ZIsNnaIgISTCCUrsWE7OWNDjP1MHOi06stgSlLEG9R7vhJqU5Xhp74rhMkKnnO!WEiD4iyyG3bPvhhBCK20zndTZa9rCSrPkyqFn3VJU9El5q+C7F3/2cdT5E6tBmPaNJyRwxbYXGns
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: 4616
 by: olcott - Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:01 UTC

On 4/21/2022 4:32 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-04-21 12:20, olcott wrote:
>
>> That everyone here claims that I am wrong knowing full well that they
>> have no idea what I am saying because they don't know the first thing
>> about the x86 language is still a lie.
>
> The "x86 language" (which doesn't even exist) has no relevance to
> computational theory.
>
>> The proof that this is a lie is that none of the "rebuttals" address
>> my airtight proof that I am correct, they simply dodged what I said
>> completely and continue to assert that a decider must compute the
>> mapping from a non-input even though they already know that a decider
>> is not allowed to compute a mapping from a non-input thus again
>> another lie.
>
> All your nonsense about "non-inputs" simply belies your continual
> misunderstanding of what Turing Machines are and how they actually work.
> In particular, you seem to have no grasp of the distinction between
> Turing Machines and the functions they compute and how those two things
> are related.
>
> Ben tried very patiently to step you through some examples of very
> simple Turing Machines in an effort to get you to construct some but you
> declined to follow through with this.
>
> Here's a question for you: If someone claimed to have spent 18 years
> studying K&R C but gave up in frustration when tasked with writing a
> simple C program to identify even numbers, would you accept their claim
> to be an expert on the C language?
>
> Yet you have asserted on numerous occasions to have a better
> understanding of both Turing Machines and the halting problem than
> anyone else here despite being unable to construct even a trivially
> simple TM and despite making all sorts of unsupported claims about TMs
> needing a gazillion steps to perform relatively straightforward tasks.
>
> Reading /about/ Turing Machines isn't how you actually gain a complete
> understanding of what they are and how they work. That's would you would
> call 'learning by rote'. If you want to really understand them you need
> to actually get your hands dirty and work with some real, fully
> implemented TMs.
>
> André
>

All rhetoric.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor