There recently occurred a two week period when Richard was virtually the
only corespondent to interact with PO. There were several dozen messages
a day written by the pair. In the past, I have accused PO of being a
troll but during the period I've just described, I started thinking that
maybe it was Richard doing the trolling. Neither participant said much
of anything either new, novel, or particularly related to what the other
had said though Richard was more on point.

I, however, changed my mind about trolling. PO is really not capable to
do any better than he is doing. Richard, on the other hand, seems to
know what he's talking about most of the time and is also aware that PO
is not able to acquire new knowledge or shake off his affected behaviors
that we are so used to.

So why was Richard engaged in this futile pedagogical activity? That has
really been puzzling me. The best answer I could think of is simply that
Richard has a kind heart! He knows, as we all do, of PO's claimed health
problems and that futile technical debate is all that keeps his thoughts
off grim reality. But two weeks holding the fort without help has taking
its toll. Fortunately Ben and Andre have returned to the fold and
allowed Richard some rest from his Herculean task.

But now it's time the rest of us take up the slack to make PO a more
livable life, and I propose a modern solution: The overall goal is to
either have the Make a Wish Foundation or some other source provide a
famous theoretical computer scientist to meet with PO and praise his
insights that have been missed by all others. At that point, PO will
find peace and may be be able to stop typing (and copying Wiki articles)
long enough to have a warm meal or at least a bowl of soup.

Here are the issues that we must address to put this humane plan of
action into operation:

1. Approach the Make a Wish Foundation to have their rules clarified -
there is a requirement that age be between 3 and 18. If that age is
chronological, we are out of luck. If it as measured by Ann Freud, I'm
sure he'll pass for more than three so we are in luck.

2. If Make a Wish Foundation refuses to be involved, then we must find a
famous theoretical computer scientist and make arrangements ourselves.

3. In all events, money will likely be needed: either as a donation to
the Foundation or to attract that famous scientist. This is where the
modern approach appears: Crowd Funding!

This is the only viable path to bring PO some good feelings about his
life and worthiness. Unless his decades of repetitious behavior have
totally numbed him, his sufferings must be great. Even a shadow of
reality leaking into his consciousness must cause agony. So let's get
busy and save the little fellow.

Volunteers needed; apply here.
--
Jeff Barnett

On Monday, 28 February 2022 at 14:30:09 UTC+8, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> There recently occurred a two week period when Richard was virtually the
> only corespondent to interact with PO. There were several dozen messages
> a day written by the pair. In the past, I have accused PO of being a
> troll but during the period I've just described, I started thinking that
> maybe it was Richard doing the trolling. Neither participant said much
> of anything either new, novel, or particularly related to what the other
> had said though Richard was more on point.

I think it might not a bad thing. Many have some blind spot of HP which
were not clearly solved in the past I saw.

> I, however, changed my mind about trolling. PO is really not capable to
> do any better than he is doing. Richard, on the other hand, seems to
> know what he's talking about most of the time and is also aware that PO
> is not able to acquire new knowledge or shake off his affected behaviors
> that we are so used to.

PO's analysis is unreliable from the fact that he cannot correctly fill the
truth table. And, most of all, his goal is his patent, not the truth others
thought.
> So why was Richard engaged in this futile pedagogical activity? That has
> really been puzzling me. The best answer I could think of is simply that
> Richard has a kind heart! He knows, as we all do, of PO's claimed health
> problems and that futile technical debate is all that keeps his thoughts
> off grim reality. But two weeks holding the fort without help has taking
> its toll. Fortunately Ben and Andre have returned to the fold and
> allowed Richard some rest from his Herculean task.

Not really futile, everyone has his blind spot or weak point to fix.

> But now it's time the rest of us take up the slack to make PO a more
> livable life, and I propose a modern solution:

My solution is simple: Do the excises of the text book he read.

> The overall goal is to
> either have the Make a Wish Foundation or some other source provide a
> famous theoretical computer scientist to meet with PO and praise his
> insights that have been missed by all others. At that point, PO will
> find peace and may be be able to stop typing (and copying Wiki articles)
> long enough to have a warm meal or at least a bowl of soup.
>
> Here are the issues that we must address to put this humane plan of
> action into operation:
>
> 1. Approach the Make a Wish Foundation to have their rules clarified -
> there is a requirement that age be between 3 and 18. If that age is
> chronological, we are out of luck. If it as measured by Ann Freud, I'm
> sure he'll pass for more than three so we are in luck.
>
> 2. If Make a Wish Foundation refuses to be involved, then we must find a
> famous theoretical computer scientist and make arrangements ourselves.
>
> 3. In all events, money will likely be needed: either as a donation to
> the Foundation or to attract that famous scientist. This is where the
> modern approach appears: Crowd Funding!
>
> This is the only viable path to bring PO some good feelings about his
> life and worthiness. Unless his decades of repetitious behavior have
> totally numbed him, his sufferings must be great. Even a shadow of
> reality leaking into his consciousness must cause agony. So let's get
> busy and save the little fellow.
>
> Volunteers needed; apply here.
> --
> Jeff Barnett

On Monday, 28 February 2022 at 06:30:09 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> There recently occurred a two week period when Richard was virtually the
> only corespondent to interact with PO. There were several dozen messages
> a day written by the pair.
>
> This is the only viable path to bring PO some good feelings about his
> life and worthiness. Unless his decades of repetitious behavior have
> totally numbed him, his sufferings must be great. Even a shadow of
> reality leaking into his consciousness must cause agony. So let's get
> busy and save the little fellow.
>
> Volunteers needed; apply here.
>
It's a technical newsgroup. We can only speculate about how another poster
is feeling. Whilst I have offered non-technical advice to people (not PO) in
the past, I've ony done so briefly. Here isn't really the place for it.

I haven't replied to PO for quite some time because I don't see anything new,
and there's nothing left to say which I haven't said many times already.

On 2/27/2022 10:30 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> There recently occurred a two week period when Richard

Who is Richard?

was virtually the
> only corespondent to interact with PO.

What is PO?

There were several dozen messages
> a day written by the pair.

What pair? What were the messages about?

In the past, I have accused PO of being a
> troll but during the period I've just described,

What period?

I started thinking that
> maybe it was Richard doing the trolling. Neither participant

Neither? Who are the two subjects of the word "neither"?

said much
> of anything either new, novel, or particularly related to what the other
> had said though Richard was more on point.

What did they say? What was on point?

>
> I, however, changed my mind about trolling. PO is really not capable to
> do any better than he is doing. Richard, on the other hand,

What about the original hand?

seems to
> know what he's talking about most of the time and is also aware that PO
> is not able to acquire new knowledge or shake off his affected behaviors
> that we are so used to.

What behaviors?

>
> So why was Richard engaged in this futile pedagogical activity?

What the actual fuck is wrong with you? Did your brain fell out?

On 2/28/2022 8:47 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Monday, 28 February 2022 at 06:30:09 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> There recently occurred a two week period when Richard was virtually the
>> only corespondent to interact with PO. There were several dozen messages
>> a day written by the pair.
>>
>> This is the only viable path to bring PO some good feelings about his
>> life and worthiness. Unless his decades of repetitious behavior have
>> totally numbed him, his sufferings must be great. Even a shadow of
>> reality leaking into his consciousness must cause agony. So let's get
>> busy and save the little fellow.
>>
>> Volunteers needed; apply here.
>>
> It's a technical newsgroup. We can only speculate about how another poster
> is feeling. Whilst I have offered non-technical advice to people (not PO) in
> the past, I've ony done so briefly. Here isn't really the place for it.
>
> I haven't replied to PO for quite some time because I don't see anything new,
> and there's nothing left to say which I haven't said many times already.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS
(1) It is the case that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the copy of the
Linz H at Ĥ.qx (where H is a simulating halt decider) would have to
abort its simulation to prevent infinite simulation.

YET FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS FOLLOWS FROM (1)
(2) It is also a fact the the above proves that this input specifies a
non-halting sequences of configurations.

That people cannot understand that (2) follows form (1) is like they
have been hit in the face with a Boston cream pie and deny that there is
any pie, as this pie drips from their face.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>
> PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS
> (1) It is the case that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the copy of the
> Linz H at Ĥ.qx (where H is a simulating halt decider) would have to
> abort its simulation to prevent infinite simulation.
I don't.

The copy of H is a halting Turing Machine so cannot go infinite.

On 2/28/2022 1:49 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>
>> PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS
>> (1) It is the case that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the copy of the
>> Linz H at Ĥ.qx (where H is a simulating halt decider) would have to
>> abort its simulation to prevent infinite simulation.
>
> I don't.
>
> The copy of H is a halting Turing Machine so cannot go infinite.

If the copy of H at Ĥ.qx never aborted its simulation then:

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩

Then these steps would keep repeating:
Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...

Maybe you could get up to speed if you read my short paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 2/28/22 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 8:47 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Monday, 28 February 2022 at 06:30:09 UTC, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> There recently occurred a two week period when Richard was virtually the
>>> only corespondent to interact with PO. There were several dozen messages
>>> a day written by the pair.
>>>
>>> This is the only viable path to bring PO some good feelings about his
>>> life and worthiness. Unless his decades of repetitious behavior have
>>> totally numbed him, his sufferings must be great. Even a shadow of
>>> reality leaking into his consciousness must cause agony. So let's get
>>> busy and save the little fellow.
>>>
>>> Volunteers needed; apply here.
>>>
>> It's a technical newsgroup. We can only speculate about how another
>> poster
>> is feeling. Whilst I have offered non-technical advice to people (not
>> PO) in
>> the past, I've ony done so briefly. Here isn't really the place for it.
>>
>> I haven't replied to PO for quite some time because I don't see
>> anything new,
>> and there's nothing left to say which I haven't said many times already.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS
> (1) It is the case that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the copy of the
> Linz H at Ĥ.qx (where H is a simulating halt decider) would have to
> abort its simulation to prevent infinite simulation.

People agree that if H doesn't abort, then the results are an infinite
simulation.

But if it does abort, then it didn't have to, because then we have a
different H^.

FAIL

>
> YET FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS FOLLOWS FROM (1)
> (2) It is also a fact the the above proves that this input specifies a
> non-halting sequences of configurations.

ONLY if H doesn't abort its simulation.

That pattern doesn't exist if H does.

>
> That people cannot understand that (2) follows form (1) is like they
> have been hit in the face with a Boston cream pie and deny that there is
> any pie, as this pie drips from their face.
>
>

Nope, only if you can show a Turing Machine that does BOTH simualte
forever and abort its simulation and return an answer at the exact same
time with the same input.

You are tripping on your Fairy Dust Powered Unicorns.

On 2/28/22 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/28/2022 1:49 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 7:58:51 AM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> PEOPLE AGREE WITH THIS
>>> (1) It is the case that the simulated input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ to the copy of the
>>> Linz H at Ĥ.qx (where H is a simulating halt decider) would have to
>>> abort its simulation to prevent infinite simulation.
>> I don't.
>>
>> The copy of H is a halting Turing Machine so cannot go infinite.
>
> If the copy of H at Ĥ.qx never aborted its simulation then:
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>   Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>
> Then these steps would keep repeating:
>   Ĥ1 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⟨Ĥ3⟩
>   Ĥ2 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ3⟩ ⟨Ĥ4⟩
>   Ĥ3 copies its input ⟨Ĥ4⟩ to ⟨Ĥ5⟩ then embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ4⟩ ⟨Ĥ5⟩...
>
> Maybe you could get up to speed if you read my short paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>

Yes, IF it never aborts it simulation, and then it doesn't answer.

If it DOES abort its simulation, you have a DIFFENT H^ which can be show
to halt when computing H^ applied to <H^>, so you new H is also wrong.

Until you can show a single Turing machine doing two different things
when given the same input you are FAILED to show that your Fairy Dust
Powered Unicorn actually exists.

All you have done is proved that you are a legend in your own mind. (and
an idiot to everyone else).