Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -- Ronald Reagan


devel / comp.theory / Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

SubjectAuthor
* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageMr Flibble
`* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
 +- HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageJeff Barnett
 `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageMr Flibble
  `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
   `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbagedklei...@gmail.com
    `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
     +- HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
     `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageAndré G. Isaak
      `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
       `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageAndré G. Isaak
        `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott
         `* HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageAndré G. Isaak
          `- HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbageolcott

1
HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19142&group=comp.theory#19142

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Message-ID: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 10
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:58:15 UTC
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:58:15 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 905
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:58 UTC

The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting the
state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
insight.

Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself erroneous.

This is a troll.

/Flibble

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19144&group=comp.theory#19144

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed7.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 20
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-hDmFBs8ATR0DWM9FRfvO+EqUVp3NxeDqcmoig2IgjiaLEfcGVQzmLXxyDNlHKf2PxWxypN+Gi4bGKqK!2G94Kc8/G4RorZgcBueKopsHldavU734u9M/mlKOETiaBnPaiikIsW7bxRu1dJBtGx4ru2GeSQ==
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: 1757
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:08 UTC

On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting the
> state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
> insight.
>
> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself erroneous.
>
> This is a troll.
>
> /Flibble
>

This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<sduvj0$l6h$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19154&group=comp.theory#19154

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jbb...@notatt.com (Jeff Barnett)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:29:28 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <sduvj0$l6h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:29:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e417a6921a4074ee4d8c3721425cf3f3";
logging-data="21713"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DNXPV8wV+edIUxvWQsGEz3kwtbCkskEc="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fntHjq0QbKqv3KBzTJdK+7/7+bY=
In-Reply-To: <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Jeff Barnett - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:29 UTC

On 7/29/2021 12:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting the
>> state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
>> insight.
>>
>> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself erroneous.
>>
>> This is a troll.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.

Perfect place for you to make your "contributions" the. Get started so
we can compare trolling ignorance, and lack of sense in the same thread.
This could really be educational but sadly nothing about HP will be learned.
--
Jeff Barnett

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19156&group=comp.theory#19156

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx05.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Message-ID: <20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc> <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization: Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 27
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:50:37 UTC
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:50:38 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 1445
 by: Mr Flibble - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:50 UTC

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
> > the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
> > insight.
> >
> > Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
> > erroneous.
> >
> > This is a troll.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.

This is a troll.

/Flibble

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19159&group=comp.theory#19159

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:01:42 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:01:41 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 39
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-QvD2d9who7doz20Oilltv6Ke/VEGKVoJNTImywNWf5sm0pFZRfqvKpj6m3hilO3+aEB1gCDtQ3iPlSq!ypLvutpil3wU8KPK9kiewo3+y55RUNu+jMJY9iNaqts+cS1Q6ydFHrc+qZUWYzDboDhLQLx1hA==
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: 2388
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:01 UTC

On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
>>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
>>> insight.
>>>
>>> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
>>> erroneous.
>>>

I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
the key essence of support for the first sentence.

>>> This is a troll.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
>> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>
> Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
> atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
> be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
>
> This is a troll.
>
> /Flibble
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19161&group=comp.theory#19161

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:a5a:: with SMTP id j26mr7200138qka.42.1627591579100;
Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:8e04:: with SMTP id p4mr8591087ybl.360.1627591578906;
Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.208.130.96; posting-account=7Xc2EwkAAABXMcQfERYamr3b-64IkBws
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.208.130.96
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc> <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc> <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
From: dkleine...@gmail.com (dklei...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:46:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
 by: dklei...@gmail.com - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 20:46 UTC

On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
> > olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
> >>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
> >>> insight.
> >>>
> >>> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
> >>> erroneous.
> >>>
> I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
> the key essence of support for the first sentence.
> >>> This is a troll.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
> >> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
> >
> > Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
> > atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
> > be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
> >
> > This is a troll.
> >
I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
do you tolerate him?

I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
language subject. At the very least you should make him define
the mapping behind his "equivalence".

But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
definition of a Turing Machine.

From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space,
a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called
Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet. There
is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State
Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.

That's a bit complicated. I hope I got it right.

I could go on but nobody wants me to.

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19162&group=comp.theory#19162

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr2.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:04:45 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc> <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc> <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:04:44 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 100
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-h4sq+WXvCc1hgoCAYPb43l1M56OQnGy/mJO5hnWyIaKZ5CC6D3Ut+MdGiShTJlWxvijvlgMo5OeH2WU!rmgIlKuWG103AiJ7jikxYr54AdKJBowqzUBlqm6BNC4YX+88YGittdsx8PP2TvTdwzl4b+7CAg==
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: 5384
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:04 UTC

On 7/29/2021 3:46 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
>>>>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
>>>>> insight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
>>>>> erroneous.
>>>>>
>> I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
>> the key essence of support for the first sentence.
>>>>> This is a troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
>>>> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>>>
>>> Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
>>> atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
>>> be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
>>>
>>> This is a troll.
>>>
> I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
> Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
> watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
> example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
> do you tolerate him?
>
> I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
> language subject. At the very least you should make him define
> the mapping behind his "equivalence".
>
> But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
> way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
> H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
> decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
> definition of a Turing Machine.
>
> From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space,
> a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
> is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called
> Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet. There
> is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
> Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State
> Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
> triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
> and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
> the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.
>
> That's a bit complicated. I hope I got it right.
>
> I could go on but nobody wants me to.
>

I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an
ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
simplification:

Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
(or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
Consider the routine P defined as follows

rec routine P
§L:if T[P] go to L
Return §

If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
that the function T cannot exist.

Strachey, C 1965. An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7,
Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313

// Strachey CPL translated to C
void P()
{ if (H((u32)P))
HERE: goto HERE;
}

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<1cadnTD0qcfXhZ78nZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19163&group=comp.theory#19163

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng sci.math.symbolic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:06:18 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,sci.math.symbolic
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:06:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <1cadnTD0qcfXhZ78nZ2dnUU7-K2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 106
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ZG83IHSVtCz8QPmxe5KRYTgcfq5dGasp25jKC8qK3D0Zv05arT/zkigcNiN/q5U65X9Z92AQaTKiKY8!Eh5qiqKSfZVxYKue0qddnHmfOue6PV8HOz8Etl5UYKWYJ1/L+d+saOrGxiAwzuOHzQ3ev5wuDg==
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: 5671
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:06 UTC

On 7/29/2021 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/29/2021 3:46 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 1:01:49 PM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2021 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:08:47 -0500
>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/29/2021 12:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> The extant HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage suggesting
>>>>>> the state of the art is one big echo chamber with an amazing lack of
>>>>>> insight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something predicated on an erroneous contradiction is itself
>>>>>> erroneous.
>>>>>>
>>> I take back my prior comment, (shown below) the above sentence provides
>>> the key essence of support for the first sentence.
>>>>>> This is a troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This post is a troll on the basis that it is a mere empty assertion
>>>>> entirely bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you have changed your tune and you now agree with the great
>>>> atheist Christopher Hitchens that assertions made without evidence can
>>>> be dismissed without evidence. This is progress indeed.
>>>>
>>>> This is a troll.
>>>>
>> I am a mathematician and old enough that I took a few courses from
>> Tarski before I decided I liked Banach Spaces better. I have been
>> watching this years-long argument and admiring it as a horrible
>> example. PO is sui generis it's you other guys I am amazed at. Why
>> do you tolerate him?
>>
>> I gag completely at PO's attempt to make Turing machines a C
>> language subject. At the very least you should make him define
>> the mapping behind his "equivalence".
>>
>> But there are other sloppy points you have let him have his own
>> way with. For example; suppose T is a Turing Machine what does
>> H(T) mean technically if H is a Turing Machine alleged to be a halt
>> decider? I am willing to accept a quintuple (or whatever) as a
>> definition of a Turing Machine.
>>
>>  From where I sit a Turing Machine is a quadruple of a Turing Data Space,
>> a Turing Code Space, a Focus and a Halt Set where: A Turing Data Space
>> is a triple of two stacks called Left and Right and a singleton called
>> Center. The set of things in Left, Center and Right is the Alphabet.
>> There
>> is a set called State Names. The value of Focus is a Sate Name. The Halt
>> Set is a set of state names. A Turing Code Space is a function from State
>> Names to functions from the Alphabet to Commands. A Command is a
>> triple of a Character from the Alphabet, a Boolean called Left-or-Right
>> and a State Name. The Focus is the name of the starting state. If any of
>> the Halting Set becomes the Focus execution of the machine stops.
>>
>> That's a bit  complicated. I hope I got it right.
>>
>> I could go on but nobody wants me to.
>>
>
> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
A very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of

> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an
> ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
> simplification:
>
> Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
> Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
> (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
> argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
> if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
> Consider the routine P defined as follows
>
> rec routine P
>   §L:if T[P] go to L
>     Return §
>
> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> that the function T cannot exist.
>
> Strachey, C 1965.  An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7,
> Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>
> // Strachey CPL translated to C
> void P()
> {
>   if (H((u32)P))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19164&group=comp.theory#19164

 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: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 15:14:18 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:14:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="11b6973ea051d86f2fc47587200f577d";
logging-data="2329"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX189m4p/FCE82wehCYVe81t9"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xMGgb/88M/SV5YdQgVjQ1pbJE6I=
In-Reply-To: <1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:14 UTC

On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:

> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was an
> ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
> simplification:

Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.

André

> Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
> Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
> (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
> argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
> if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
> Consider the routine P defined as follows
>
> rec routine P
>   §L:if T[P] go to L
>     Return §
>
> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
> that the function T cannot exist.
>
> Strachey, C 1965.  An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume 7,
> Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>
> // Strachey CPL translated to C
> void P()
> {
>   if (H((u32)P))
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
>

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19165&group=comp.theory#19165

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy comp.software-eng comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!tr1.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:28:18 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.software-eng,comp.theory
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc> <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc> <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com> <1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:28:17 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wLjmPjXjAVBlQVDyYRelnPZ0CGxPTS3isKCs404kd1M6VdoRUbrFtHCJhR2H5ZO57ugwD4Z11EqxDfS!UH8kva8B0Q9Ri6xuF4vAC1Koy2YkIHlOd+IFo4OFCRsneWClvo9B7DqwZK/i61QhWAgkLbCPXA==
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: 3921
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:28 UTC

On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
>
>> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
>> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was
>> an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
>> simplification:
>
> Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
>
> André

No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
sums up the one by Turing:

the proof ... is so short and simple that it
may be of interest to casual readers. The version
below uses CPL, but not in any essential way.

Sir,
A well-known piece of folk-lore among programmers
holds that it is impossible to write a program which can
examine any other program and tell, in every case, if it
will terminate or get into a closed loop when it is run. I have never
actually seen a proof of this in print, and
though Alan Turing once gave me a verbal proof (in a
railway carriage on the way to a Conference at the
NPL in 1953), I unfortunately and promptly forgot the
details. This left me with an uneasy feeling that the
proof must be long or complicated, but in fact it is so
short and simple that it may be of interest to casual
readers. The version below uses CPL, but not in any
essential way.

>
>> Here are Strachey's (verbatim) own words
>> Suppose T[R] is a Boolean function taking a routine
>> (or program) R with no formal or free variables as its
>> argument and that for all R, T[R] — True if R terminates
>> if run and that T[R] = False if R does not terminate.
>> Consider the routine P defined as follows
>>
>> rec routine P
>>    §L:if T[P] go to L
>>      Return §
>>
>> If T[P] = True the routine P will loop, and it will
>> only terminate if T[P] = False. In each case T[P] has
>> exactly the wrong value, and this contradiction shows
>> that the function T cannot exist.
>>
>> Strachey, C 1965.  An impossible program The Computer Journal, Volume
>> 7, Issue 4, January 1965, Page 313,
>> https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.313
>>
>> // Strachey CPL translated to C
>> void P()
>> {
>>    if (H((u32)P))
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19170&group=comp.theory#19170

 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: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 17:02:27 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
<7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:02:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c4fbf7bd10ba1e18ca0a18927589aeea";
logging-data="28546"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rHzX8tLa4JhO8eGJjebxq"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ant0ARLlc9X14ZkI7ULyDRI5/Fo=
In-Reply-To: <7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:02 UTC

On 2021-07-29 15:28, olcott wrote:
> On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
>>> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was
>>> an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
>>> simplification:
>>
>> Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
>>
>> André
>
> No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
> sums up the one by Turing:

But he does so without making false claims about his CPL program. He
doesn't claim that it is a Turing Machine. He doesn't claim that it is
"equivalent" to a Turing Machine. He claims it is a CPL program. Unlike
you, he doesn't see any need to abuse terminology the way you do which
was (at least in part) the point of DKleinecke's post.

André

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<DeednYTEZvm1pZ78nZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19172&group=comp.theory#19172

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:22:16 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc> <VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> <20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc> <BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com> <1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me> <7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 18:22:16 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <DeednYTEZvm1pZ78nZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 35
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-ty4ARkVrUy41xGSTpsQvq4ggsfnqGW1wpGrbL0jyEeO8TKNNobSjx/u1lZajuYoO2nC5hWB1Kd4W+W3!4lnSZvdVceleftqJthZVY1q4GUjqXRGy7QoobRIyAf/GJ489cfCPsCkxqDxRk2SGeaAt7TWqNQ==
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: 2819
 by: olcott - Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:22 UTC

On 7/29/2021 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-29 15:28, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
>>>> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that was
>>>> an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this Strachey
>>>> simplification:
>>>
>>> Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
>>>
>>> André
>>
>> No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
>> sums up the one by Turing:
>
> But he does so without making false claims about his CPL program. He
> doesn't claim that it is a Turing Machine. He doesn't claim that it is
> "equivalent" to a Turing Machine. He claims it is a CPL program. Unlike
> you, he doesn't see any need to abuse terminology the way you do which
> was (at least in part) the point of DKleinecke's post.
>
> André
>
>

He simply says that his little CPL program accurately sums up the whole
proof, which bring all those other things along with this statement.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<sdvkmp$90m$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19188&group=comp.theory#19188

 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: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:29:57 -0600
Organization: Christians and Atheists United Against Creeping Agnosticism
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <sdvkmp$90m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
<7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>
<DeednYTEZvm1pZ78nZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 01:30:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c4fbf7bd10ba1e18ca0a18927589aeea";
logging-data="9238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/U2q5RH8Saa6FmdCcGqCky"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R8/Ic1qSOhZQjIskm83KkRM7T/I=
In-Reply-To: <DeednYTEZvm1pZ78nZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: André G. Isaak - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 01:29 UTC

On 2021-07-29 17:22, olcott wrote:
> On 7/29/2021 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-29 15:28, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
>>>>> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that
>>>>> was an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this
>>>>> Strachey simplification:
>>>>
>>>> Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>
>>> No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
>>> sums up the one by Turing:
>>
>> But he does so without making false claims about his CPL program. He
>> doesn't claim that it is a Turing Machine. He doesn't claim that it is
>> "equivalent" to a Turing Machine. He claims it is a CPL program.
>> Unlike you, he doesn't see any need to abuse terminology the way you
>> do which was (at least in part) the point of DKleinecke's post.
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
> He simply says that his little CPL program accurately sums up the whole
> proof, which bring all those other things along with this statement.

No. It doesn't. I can assure you that Strachey would *never* claim that
his CPL program was a Turing Machine. Nor would he claim that his P by
itself is equivalent to a Turing Machine because *it isn't*.

André

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

Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage

<PbednTYmR48xw578nZ2dnUU78WtQAAAA@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=19192&group=comp.theory#19192

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:06:36 -0500
Subject: Re: HP proofs appear to be peer reviewed garbage
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20210729185815.0000735e@reddwarf.jmc>
<VcOdncvr2Kstc5_8nZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
<20210729205038.00001570@reddwarf.jmc>
<BN2dnTEU1cm7lJ78nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<35dd297e-d40d-43e1-87e3-9b90ec70351an@googlegroups.com>
<1cadnTH0qcdwip78nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdv5ne$28p$1@dont-email.me>
<7oSdnR5EWOXvgJ78nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdvc23$rs2$1@dont-email.me>
<DeednYTEZvm1pZ78nZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com> <sdvkmp$90m$1@dont-email.me>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 21:06:35 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <sdvkmp$90m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <PbednTYmR48xw578nZ2dnUU78WtQAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 49
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-olG7LhGjgAjuu4QbUVFqEhvD3NcZUpN+N/68apTMhmZk0Aqi9PIiclxMMnWhU3w6+Fil4pl6rPQttOt!5qEEb3BNFCgdKwVwabX1XrYZC/dGVWAf7ik41ZQmos4gbIUN61385IPMlBmQ8N4x2792yoZBwA==
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: 3382
 by: olcott - Fri, 30 Jul 2021 02:06 UTC

On 7/29/2021 8:29 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-29 17:22, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/29/2021 6:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-29 15:28, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/29/2021 4:14 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-29 15:04, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I very distinguished scholar already made the same sort of
>>>>>> simplification that I made in the language that he invented that
>>>>>> was an ancestor to C: CPL. Flibble's insight is based on this
>>>>>> Strachey simplification:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nowhere does Strachey refer to his CPL program as a 'Turing Machine'.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>
>>>> No instead he simply cuts to the chase and says that his short proof
>>>> sums up the one by Turing:
>>>
>>> But he does so without making false claims about his CPL program. He
>>> doesn't claim that it is a Turing Machine. He doesn't claim that it
>>> is "equivalent" to a Turing Machine. He claims it is a CPL program.
>>> Unlike you, he doesn't see any need to abuse terminology the way you
>>> do which was (at least in part) the point of DKleinecke's post.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>
>>
>> He simply says that his little CPL program accurately sums up the
>> whole proof, which bring all those other things along with this
>> statement.
>
> No. It doesn't. I can assure you that Strachey would *never* claim that
> his CPL program was a Turing Machine. Nor would he claim that his P by
> itself is equivalent to a Turing Machine because *it isn't*.
>
> André
>

No he went much further than this he said that his CPL accurately summed
up the entire proof.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor