Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.


devel / comp.theory / Question for Olcott

SubjectAuthor
* Question for OlcottMr Flibble
`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |     `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |      `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | | `- Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |   +- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      | `- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |+- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | | +- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | | `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Python
 |       |       | |   |   |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   |    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |     `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |     `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |      `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |       `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |        +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |        `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |         +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |         `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |          +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |          `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |           +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |           `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Daniel Pehoushek
 |       |       | |            `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |             +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |             `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |              +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |              `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |               +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |               `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                 +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                 `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                  +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                    `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |       `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |        `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |         `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |||`- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 ||||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||| `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 ||||  `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]Richard Damon
 ||||   `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 |||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Jeff Barnett
 ||`- Question for Olcott [ technical competence ]olcott
 |`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 `- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]wij

Pages:123456
Question for Olcott

<20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32944&group=comp.theory#32944

 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.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx07.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: flib...@reddwarf.jmc (Mr Flibble)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Question for Olcott
Message-ID: <20220523195242.00006aae@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: 11
X-Complaints-To: abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:52:42 UTC
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:52:42 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 849
 by: Mr Flibble - Mon, 23 May 2022 18:52 UTC

A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

All things being equal which is more likely:

(a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
(b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

?

/Flibble

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32945&group=comp.theory#32945

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 14:05:02 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 14:05:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 31
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-tYrymrdNnAVxlIv0HDCg9y4fUGVc++C9hGZ6uTsWdiFb8bktKwaVy3uN1X05J+gy7RyvgQMD1yFBurI!ApHpqoyv+h6HlzkqHa0d3u/5DQSPKbPZX0w/sD7SqFAeFjLWeatGR1MadBeoDT15ur5fV9uF1gE=
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: 2144
 by: olcott - Mon, 23 May 2022 19:05 UTC

On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>
> All things being equal which is more likely:
>
> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
> ?
>
> /Flibble
>

Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
validation.

Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5

--
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: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32952&group=comp.theory#32952

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx33.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:33:39 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 2471
 by: Richard Damon - Mon, 23 May 2022 23:33 UTC

On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>
>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>
>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>
>> ?
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> validation.
>
> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.

You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?

Remember the DEFINITION of a Halt Decider.

You try to use double talk to say otherwise, but the basic defintion
proves you to be a liar.

A Halt Decider is a Machine, that given a representation of a Turing
Machine, and it input, will return the answer of wether that machine
applied to that input will halt.

If you want to claim that you can't give a represention of the machine
H^ and the input <H^> to H, then you are just CONFIRMING that the H to
answer that question can't exist.

You whole "proof" is built on a lie.

>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>
>

Yep, LIES.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32953&group=comp.theory#32953

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic comp.software-eng
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:50:29 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:50:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,comp.software-eng
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 39
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-wJ6PG8E3sGMnktvedO08WyOLj/DUV3gc7hIS5SPV+fmElrWp082RFurRZzy89FSr7xOswBv9wjj1j0m!t+/m8bZRq1VflnHmIJnzVKYc8lnL6bFIXTZvZz7eYC2V2Rncdzh6EXm72JcM5KbPJRNWWiaofEA=
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: 2610
 by: olcott - Mon, 23 May 2022 23:50 UTC

On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>
>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>
>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>> validation.
>>
>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>
> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
(0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
the last instruction of this 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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32956&group=comp.theory#32956

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx35.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:41:25 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3543
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 00:41 UTC

On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>
>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>
>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>> validation.
>>>
>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>
>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> the last instruction of this input.
>

Wrong.

I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
reaching the final state, as have YOU.

All you have shown with your recent arguements is that H's incomplete,
and thus incorrect, simulation doesn't get to that point.

You lies that this "Proves" your claim are just that, LIES.

A simulation that is aborts is NOT a "Correct Simulation" for showing
Halting, as the program being simulated didn't just disappear then.

Note, your arguement about "No number of steps" is using logic that
breaks the requirement that H be an actual computation.

H must have a FIXED algorithm, and for ANY algorithm you assign to it,
if it does abort its simulation of P and return non-halting, then that
simulation is proved to be incorrect and the answer wrong. And if the
algorithm doesn't abort its simulation then if fails to answer, and is
thus also wrong.

All that arguing over "All Possible H's" does is show that your template
fails for every case, not that any particular one is correct.

You failure to understand this just shows that you don't understand how
computers, especially the x86, works, or what Computation Theory is about.

You are just PROVING your ignorance.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32957&group=comp.theory#32957

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5b84:0:b0:462:406a:85db with SMTP id 4-20020ad45b84000000b00462406a85dbmr5633892qvp.127.1653353074775;
Mon, 23 May 2022 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d209:0:b0:64e:405:bf40 with SMTP id
j9-20020a25d209000000b0064e0405bf40mr24192484ybg.101.1653353074609; Mon, 23
May 2022 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 00:44:34 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 00:44 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >
> > On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>
> >>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>
> >>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> >> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >> validation.
> >>
> >> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >
> > You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> > the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> the last instruction of this input.

But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.

So what you're actually saying is that because the fixed algorithm of H (which from here on we'll call Ha to make that point more explicit, and likewise P will be called Pa to make it explicit that it's calling Ha) is unable to simulate its input to a final state then non-halting is the correct answer.

If that's your criteria for correctness, this means that *any* halt decider that aborts its input and reports non-halting is necessarily correct by that criteria. Like Ha3(N,5)==0.

Or are you again talking about multiple different H's and the multiple different P's that call them? i.e.:

Since Hn(Pn,Pn) (where Hn performs an unconditional simulation) does not halt,
and H1(P1,P1)==0,
and H2(P2,P2)==0,
and H3(P3,P3)==0,
and H4(P4,P4)==0,
....
Then for any i, Hi(Pi,Pi)==0 is correct.

Which is an invalid argument because Pa is a completely different computation from P1, and P2, and P3, etc.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32960&group=comp.theory#32960

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:57:39 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:57:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 55
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-7qrhLysmqF0wcOSeY2lsH4bvMeg2zdLN1BzjNHV+Rl9ihsTnBF0woXgnH1gq6eHrQWn3He1d/+GJJ5h!jaNEHViN2MYPurWLF6VCWdaWq9iTeOWafpd1zDFoNlNlneMdOEKmeKR/66XZeTvb09+mziOJjjg=
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: 3440
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 00:57 UTC

On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>> validation.
>>>>
>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>
>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
>> the last instruction of this input.
>
> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.

_Infinite_Loop()
[000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
[000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
[000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
[000012c8](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [000012c8]

None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
infinite number of steps.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32961&group=comp.theory#32961

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:01:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:01:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 51
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XWtl+MBwgU3xQg9YSO3kWEgJkl9INk05KJ6bkDyajMIb8KzYCDUdbNhi4KFduISdKgVOxO8OmFyWtON!BQrM7d9tEMK4EFQl6Q9eI712P8USD30u1VJBxnQ2y7viO5TfNOqy6EIYMGIFWL09FO6iY4/zihc=
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: 3174
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:01 UTC

On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>> validation.
>>>>
>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>
>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
>>> is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
>> of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
>> reach the last instruction of this input.
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
> reaching the final state, as have YOU.
That is a despicable lie and you know it.
You are an atheist right?

No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32962&group=comp.theory#32962

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:3711:b0:6a3:83ff:11dc with SMTP id de17-20020a05620a371100b006a383ff11dcmr5176137qkb.685.1653354336807;
Mon, 23 May 2022 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:728:b0:64f:3403:e7df with SMTP id
l8-20020a056902072800b0064f3403e7dfmr23270276ybt.565.1653354336635; Mon, 23
May 2022 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 01:05:36 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3963
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:05 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> >>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >>>> validation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>
> >>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> >>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> >> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> >> the last instruction of this input.
> >
> > But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.

> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
> infinite number of steps.

So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct? Because that's exactly what you're saying when you say "if it did simulate an infinite number of steps" because the fixed algorithm of Ha does not simulate Pa for an infinite number of steps but Hn does simulate Pn for an infinite number of steps.

And Pa(Pa) does not match an infinite behavior pattern because it halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is incorrect on that basis. To further reinforce that point, Hb(Pa,Pa) simulates the same input to a final state and returns 1. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32963&group=comp.theory#32963

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:08:47 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:08:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-irACjY6K+TlZ9Db+6uzaASEZ0loX7z9cK9dj4m6aqSkvtaj/cIx9FxzN8nDxv5epXfcgfgyVVTQUZTX!kpxlgVnQC9crkLztmTWlxndslXtppH8enjr+MfgBtNQoTHT91tLh9quhSWMkhZrX8l1iaMwWVnY=
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: 3882
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:08 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>
>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
>
>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
>> infinite number of steps.
>
> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?

No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
infinite loop.

_Infinite_Loop()
[000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
[000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
[000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
[000012c8](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [000012

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32964&group=comp.theory#32964

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:ec15:0:b0:6a3:304c:504b with SMTP id h21-20020ae9ec15000000b006a3304c504bmr15053472qkg.662.1653354920237;
Mon, 23 May 2022 18:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:4ac2:0:b0:651:6dff:26f7 with SMTP id
x185-20020a254ac2000000b006516dff26f7mr1739168yba.518.1653354920037; Mon, 23
May 2022 18:15:20 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 01:15:20 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 4606
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:15 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> >>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> >>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> >>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> >>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>
> >>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
> >
> >> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
> >> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
> >> infinite number of steps.
> >
> > So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> infinite loop.
> _Infinite_Loop()
> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012

Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32965&group=comp.theory#32965

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:21:05 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 3293
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:21 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>> validation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>
>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
>>>> is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
>>> of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever
>>> reach the last instruction of this input.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
>> reaching the final state, as have YOU.
> That is a despicable lie and you know it.
> You are an atheist right?

What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be,
other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

(Note, PROGRAM)

>
> No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
> 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?
>

YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
definitions of what things are. YOU are the one who is making up your
own reality and denying that God exists (since you can not analytically
prove that he does, and by your words, if you can't analytically prove
it, it isn't true).

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32966&group=comp.theory#32966

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:24:40 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:24:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 66
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BvAdNNE3s/p0vgZcIv/cozY18g1ItMwuP//llY5VKsAQBa8atlqDiyVgY35v3DKc23vUAzGmYnOiiN5!XDmL4k6ftfyBNZT49SJdKrbTsRrJIXYHOP7+UKeS8z4KNh9VvfhlRpaTiCvkwhedmzngEmW5ty0=
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: 4336
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:24 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
>>>
>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>
>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?

>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>> infinite loop.
>> _Infinite_Loop()
>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>
> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>
It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32967&group=comp.theory#32967

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5dcc:0:b0:2f3:d8d2:7cf with SMTP id e12-20020ac85dcc000000b002f3d8d207cfmr18596233qtx.464.1653355793120;
Mon, 23 May 2022 18:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:102e:b0:64f:4fbd:5a68 with SMTP id
x14-20020a056902102e00b0064f4fbd5a68mr19963603ybt.527.1653355792938; Mon, 23
May 2022 18:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 01:29:53 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:29 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself..
> >>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> >>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> >>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> >>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
> >>>
> >>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
> >>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
> >>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>
> >>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>
> >> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >> infinite loop.
> >> _Infinite_Loop()
> >> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >
> > Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >
> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.

An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different, so YES it is irrelevant.

And Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern.

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32968&group=comp.theory#32968

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:32:53 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:32:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 88
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-b8JHxKhT6Pod0j7vywDxmLs1wQP2wbIHkxqpBIT5lhRbzMBmjaC6y+dYgIh+n63Z6xhiPptQQbp3TSG!UPlkwtKh0nMDfufuPqZ6jpQs0V0POfweEyMonqAfmaiwUxDr8elEpvIFNjdJgTucs75VMJmfkfQ=
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: 4396
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:32 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that
>>>>> is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair
>>>> of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>> ever reach the last instruction of this input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows it
>>> reaching the final state, as have YOU.
>> That is a despicable lie and you know it.
>> You are an atheist right?
>
> What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to be,
> other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?

It is a God damned lie and you know it.
That is the only thing that is wrong with it.

>
> (Note, PROGRAM)
>
>>
>> No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
>> 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?
>>
>
> YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
> definitions of what things are.

You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae.
Why lie does that give you A thrill?

Hopefully you will not be incinerated eternally.
This seems far too harsh to me.

> YOU are the one who is making up your
> own reality and denying that God exists

God is proven to exist empirically in that the fundamental nature of
reality is entirely different than what we have been brainwashed to
believe.

> (since you can not analytically
> prove that he does, and by your words, if you can't analytically prove
> it, it isn't true).

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<xBWiK.30170$J0r9.13850@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32969&group=comp.theory#32969

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <xBWiK.30170$J0r9.13850@fx11.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:33:17 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 4427
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:33 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>>>>>> steps
>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number
>>>>>> of steps.
>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>> simulate an
>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>
>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>
>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>> infinite loop.
>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>
>> Irrelevant,  because this isn't part of any P.
>>
> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>

Yes, it can detect SOME infinite loops, but you haven't proved it can
detect ALL infinite loops, or in particular, the infinite pattern you
claim is in P (that isn't actually infinite if it is detected by H).

This is a classical fallicy of incorrect generalization / incorrect
proof by example.

Just shows your level of knowledge of logic that you fall for such
elementary errors.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32970&group=comp.theory#32970

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:34:43 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:34:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 73
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-bXz2tPFmeAdIPwcMs4y4q14Gl8XjSgcL9X+zCekSMyAkcEOUTWhTFHH+qkYpWUxXSIRU+hn0/Hahvpq!LGGffOx7DsGAOa9sXpYsHAMXrlFSASc2PJ9vsj4cPfPYwDGgXezikO1VipgWODdvaliuw0+NiYE=
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: 4877
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:34 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>
>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>> infinite loop.
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>
>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>
>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>
> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,

It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<c1cd39c3-3e7e-401d-809f-f99278d3293dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32971&group=comp.theory#32971

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a37:2f04:0:b0:663:397d:7051 with SMTP id v4-20020a372f04000000b00663397d7051mr15528945qkh.333.1653356247813;
Mon, 23 May 2022 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d9d4:0:b0:2ff:3f72:5623 with SMTP id
b203-20020a0dd9d4000000b002ff3f725623mr25964033ywe.65.1653356247620; Mon, 23
May 2022 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c1cd39c3-3e7e-401d-809f-f99278d3293dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 01:37:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 6037
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:37 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:34:50 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> >>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> >>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> >>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> >>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
> >>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
> >>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>
> >>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>> infinite loop.
> >>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>
> >>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>
> >> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >
> > An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic

Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern.

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.

Using H to confuse Ha with Hn and using P to confuse Pa with Pn is designed to deceive.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<pO-dnfmJ08Z3qxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32972&group=comp.theory#32972

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:37:46 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:37:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<xBWiK.30170$J0r9.13850@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <xBWiK.30170$J0r9.13850@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <pO-dnfmJ08Z3qxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 83
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sgAqmxZSLgC65o5Lj2vaGup+RGx+iKrah4E7Albr20vpfkORbzDTS3LZd3oPZyHo/lg0hsjnS6nuTnC!et8OwU9VPY+zos053ALrQacrSAYTMwBOJ4SC/F7LcjHef957Nhd4EY8G6rSupmTZxAJtJfMOMec=
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: 4984
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:37 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/23/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>
>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>> infinite loop.
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>
>>> Irrelevant,  because this isn't part of any P.
>>>
>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>
>
> Yes, it can detect SOME infinite loops,

My whole point is that it is very obvious that it does correctly detect
infinite behavior without infinite simulation as Jackass implied.

You strive very diligently to make sure to always miss the point even
when this point is reemphasized hundreds of times.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<pO-dnfiJ08agqhH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32973&group=comp.theory#32973

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:39:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:39:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<c1cd39c3-3e7e-401d-809f-f99278d3293dn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c1cd39c3-3e7e-401d-809f-f99278d3293dn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <pO-dnfiJ08agqhH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 87
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-DGTkb8yExsk2gknyQ8pWx1GskPQ44TwNrIpITY8FkQ+D21+wNOyfUG/grRDuVXqUIPbt/VzUrD92Q9d!6x6tqTB2c3CsKRl2XQh04cUlzThAtiyesLf7+b81oFY17LwbTECHXsXeERU0KlbrBMXAzO0RE7s=
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: 6097
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:39 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:34:50 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>
>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>
>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>
>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>
> Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern.
>
> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>
> If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.
>
>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>
> Using H to confuse Ha with Hn and using P to confuse Pa with Pn is designed to deceive.
>

Until you prove that you will stay focused on H(P,P) I am going to
ignore your lying ass.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32974&group=comp.theory#32974

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:40:22 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5013
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:40 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>
>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>
>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>
>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>
> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>

If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
which is one of the P's you talk about must be.

Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<0bb651f8-35bd-4aea-97fd-bc35375d580dn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32975&group=comp.theory#32975

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:27cc:b0:462:557b:cc38 with SMTP id ge12-20020a05621427cc00b00462557bcc38mr11904qvb.4.1653356443147;
Mon, 23 May 2022 18:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:6d94:0:b0:2ff:ce26:92cf with SMTP id
i142-20020a816d94000000b002ffce2692cfmr10688824ywc.513.1653356442969; Mon, 23
May 2022 18:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 18:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pO-dnfiJ08agqhH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<c1cd39c3-3e7e-401d-809f-f99278d3293dn@googlegroups.com> <pO-dnfiJ08agqhH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0bb651f8-35bd-4aea-97fd-bc35375d580dn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 01:40:43 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 7181
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:40 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:39:16 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:37 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:34:50 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of steps
> >>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n number of steps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
> >>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did simulate an
> >>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>
> >>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >
> > Pa(Pa) doesn't have infinite simulation. Pn(Pn) does, and Ha can detect that, but that doesn't matter as Pa(Pa) doesn't have that pattern.
> >
> > Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >
> > If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.
> >
> >> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >
> > Using H to confuse Ha with Hn and using P to confuse Pa with Pn is designed to deceive.
> >
> Until you prove that you will stay focused on H(P,P) I am going to
> ignore your lying ass.

And by H(P,P) you mean the H that has a fixed algorithm to abort and the P that calls it? Then you are in fact talking about Ha(Pa,Pa).

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<gRWiK.6581$GTEb.47@fx48.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32976&group=comp.theory#32976

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx48.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/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>
<7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <gRWiK.6581$GTEb.47@fx48.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:50:04 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5264
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:50 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>> that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>>>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>> pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>> would ever reach the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
>>>> it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
>>> That is a despicable lie and you know it.
>>> You are an atheist right?
>>
>> What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
>> be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
>
> It is a God damned lie and you know it.
> That is the only thing that is wrong with it.
>
>>
>> (Note, PROGRAM)
>>
>>>
>>> No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
>>> 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo, right?
>>>
>>
>> YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
>> definitions of what things are.
>
>
> You know that you are not following the definition of the x86 langugae.
> Why lie does that give you A thrill?

No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
location it is called.

What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
guilty of lying.

You idle use of those words is just ad-hominem attacks, which just
proves that you have nothing to back your words. (At least I specify the
details of what you are lying about).

>
> Hopefully you will not be incinerated eternally.
> This seems far too harsh to me.

I have no fear of that, for I know my savior. You, on the other hand
deny him and are guilty of the sin of lying that you accuse other of.

>
>
>> YOU are the one who is making up your own reality and denying that God
>> exists
>
> God is proven to exist empirically in that the fundamental nature of
> reality is entirely different than what we have been brainwashed to
> believe.

Really, BY YOUR Definition. What SENSE gives you ACTUAL PROOF (by your
definition). Have you actually seen him with your eyes? Heard him with
your ears?

Remember, YOU are the one that said empirical proof needs to be based on
the physical senses and not based on "thoughts".

Yes, God proves himself to those willing to believe, but not in the
sense you require, so YOUR logic denies him, and thus so do you, and
that condemns you to the fire you try to foist on others.

All you do is prove that you don't really believe the definitions you
want to impose, which makes you a Hypocrite, which is one of the worse
types of liars.

>
>>  (since you can not analytically prove that he does, and by your
>> words, if you can't analytically prove it, it isn't true).
>
>

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32977&group=comp.theory#32977

 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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:50:21 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:50:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-YrYC+xPdLe/3bN2MMQMOGFECdsPA+xIEG3AdGYLbyxhUNtDFI2+QOHiJGARTjQsTrcrj8h3bBvxs0pa!s/tcPfeQBwbB7DZiPvLcqjncNPbTW/1E+XR9XlP+Lb1xWrK1VbiIb1vUE8mVL9X+UpjYewblPgU=
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: 5905
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:50 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>
>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>
>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>
>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>
>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>
>
> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>

I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.

> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.

I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
and another immutable machine language literal string named P.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<d9WdnbU5sMzVpxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32978&group=comp.theory#32978

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:52:08 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:52:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>
<7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <gRWiK.6581$GTEb.47@fx48.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <gRWiK.6581$GTEb.47@fx48.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <d9WdnbU5sMzVpxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 85
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-qrQyYqo67Hij7mqcw7cIvx5uNTB3CzUduneozVKtQSGqHHkIb+1fvdLVXI9ga4F6ElZ/hG24+9jtaKk!NpMLOhka/tZScfHM9TW8lD2fW899bYilUk9XVJTonsaYLu7EyoXqJM5nru/5C/OtsClV+0qEp/8=
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: 4559
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:52 UTC

On 5/23/2022 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>> actual validation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>> that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>>>>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>>> pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>>> would ever reach the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
>>>>> it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
>>>> That is a despicable lie and you know it.
>>>> You are an atheist right?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
>>> be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
>>
>> It is a God damned lie and you know it.
>> That is the only thing that is wrong with it.
>>
>>>
>>> (Note, PROGRAM)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of Revelations
>>>> 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that mumbo jumbo,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
>>> definitions of what things are.
>>
>>
>> You know that you are not following the definition of the x86
>> langugae. Why lie does that give you A thrill?
>
> No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
> location it is called.
>
> What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
> guilty of lying.
>
>>>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
>>>>> it reaching the final state, as have YOU.

--
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:123456
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor