Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.


computers / comp.ai.philosophy / Re: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slight breakthrough ]

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slightolcott
`- Re: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slightRichard Damon

1
Re: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slight breakthrough ]

<IuadnXFBwcJNrwz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9011&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9011

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
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: Fri, 27 May 2022 15:21:36 -0500
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 15:21:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slight
breakthrough ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ZsGdnbObotHZcxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<e4c6c5d4-795f-4a02-b38b-c439dab631fcn@googlegroups.com>
<XvadnXUQjtD_DBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9358d2a6-b2a0-4465-b7ab-b37279ed08acn@googlegroups.com>
<t6k47r$2va$1@dont-email.me>
<0928670f-b446-4052-b57f-8601e1ed1b47n@googlegroups.com>
<t6k4k0$5hj$1@dont-email.me>
<b855ef33-09c6-40e8-bf7a-349e8f2136can@googlegroups.com>
<woGdnUC1S4MZBBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0UgjK.27591$3Gzd.26207@fx96.iad>
<L7WdnWGMIJ8iBhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<03cc70cf-1ae9-459a-8704-86189fe4d6c8n@googlegroups.com>
<9c2d6e0b-93a1-42c5-b91b-8240c07cc2ebn@googlegroups.com>
<t6lka5$16f2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87v8ttv4he.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t6m6lh$158f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87k0a9qekv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<e4c8a2a3-76ef-4945-aae9-55bf1dd1c7c8n@googlegroups.com>
<87y1yopmjk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9405cb6b-c38d-4fda-95d4-b7661c8570cdn@googlegroups.com>
<87leumojgw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9CdnUfT54uosQz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P7akK.3$_T.2@fx40.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <P7akK.3$_T.2@fx40.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <IuadnXFBwcJNrwz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 81
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LaWfT+9vkzFdwt+e/hMfm2lNtbMWJ0e5EZmWFhKnqyPagFTw8IEgUfrn3PPj4JDD5Gzf07FouLU0Z4Y!O5SZhxF+Nru/DQ7QD5NFiagky8NpDBReyF/EdnDHZIu21QAcD0T8QugEkfCpxTpwbButOuvtpRk=
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: 5261
 by: olcott - Fri, 27 May 2022 20:21 UTC

On 5/27/2022 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/27/22 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 12:21:07 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 02:15:36 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I admit it's all guesswork though. I seriously lost interest when
>>>>>>> all I
>>>>>>> thought it worth doing was pointing out that if H(X,Y) does not
>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>> on the "halting" of X(Y) then it's not doing what everyone else is
>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me, that's what retains the interest.
>>>>>> If someone claims that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts, and they have an H such
>>>>>> that H(Hat, H_Hat) reports "Halting", then they would say that,
>>>>>> wouldn't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it turns out that H isn't a Turing machine but a C/x86 program,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that they are refusing to provide the source, then really the whole
>>>>>> thing must be dismissed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However if they say that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts, and H(H_Hat,H_Hat)
>>>>>> reports non-halting, and they can prove that H is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason at all to think that H is /not/ correct. But since H
>>>>> is not reporting on the halting of a call to H_Hat(H_Hat), I don't see
>>>>> what's interesting about it being correct. Do you really think it's
>>>>> "deciding" some interesting property of the "input"?
>>>>>
>>>> I can't follow all the arguments, and they seem to shift over time.
>>>
>>> I think it's important to separate out all the difference kinds of
>>> nonsense he has produced over the years because they require different
>>> responses.
>>>
>>
>> It actually makes more sense to simply drop endless rehashing of
>> points that have already been resolved and focus on what is currently
>> being proposed.
>
> Except none of your points HAVE been resolved, except to show that you
> are wrong about them.
>

There is only one point that is unresolved.

*This has been resolved despite that fact that liars disagree*
(1) Whether or not the C function H(P,P)==0 on the basis of whether or
not the correct x86 emulation of the input finite strings of machine
language of P would ever reach its "ret" instruction.

(2) Whether or not H(P,P) must report on anything other than the actual
behavior that its input actually specifies.

int sum(int X, int Y)
{ return X + Y;
}

Goofy people will say that it does, as if the function sum(4,3) must
always also derive the current price of tea in China.

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: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slight breakthrough ]

<NPakK.304$ntj.286@fx15.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=9013&group=comp.ai.philosophy#9013

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic sci.math
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx15.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: Experts would agree that my reviewers are incorrect [ slight
breakthrough ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.math
References: <ZsGdnbObotHZcxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<XvadnXUQjtD_DBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9358d2a6-b2a0-4465-b7ab-b37279ed08acn@googlegroups.com>
<t6k47r$2va$1@dont-email.me>
<0928670f-b446-4052-b57f-8601e1ed1b47n@googlegroups.com>
<t6k4k0$5hj$1@dont-email.me>
<b855ef33-09c6-40e8-bf7a-349e8f2136can@googlegroups.com>
<woGdnUC1S4MZBBD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<0UgjK.27591$3Gzd.26207@fx96.iad>
<L7WdnWGMIJ8iBhD_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<03cc70cf-1ae9-459a-8704-86189fe4d6c8n@googlegroups.com>
<9c2d6e0b-93a1-42c5-b91b-8240c07cc2ebn@googlegroups.com>
<t6lka5$16f2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87v8ttv4he.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<t6m6lh$158f$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87k0a9qekv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<e4c8a2a3-76ef-4945-aae9-55bf1dd1c7c8n@googlegroups.com>
<87y1yopmjk.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
<9405cb6b-c38d-4fda-95d4-b7661c8570cdn@googlegroups.com>
<87leumojgw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <w9CdnUfT54uosQz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<P7akK.3$_T.2@fx40.iad> <IuadnXFBwcJNrwz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <IuadnXFBwcJNrwz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <NPakK.304$ntj.286@fx15.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: Fri, 27 May 2022 16:49:48 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 6036
X-Original-Bytes: 5903
 by: Richard Damon - Fri, 27 May 2022 20:49 UTC

On 5/27/22 4:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2022 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>> On 5/27/22 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2022 2:37 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 12:21:07 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 26 May 2022 at 02:15:36 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I admit it's all guesswork though. I seriously lost interest
>>>>>>>> when all I
>>>>>>>> thought it worth doing was pointing out that if H(X,Y) does not
>>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>>> on the "halting" of X(Y) then it's not doing what everyone else is
>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, that's what retains the interest.
>>>>>>> If someone claims that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts, and they have an H such
>>>>>>> that H(Hat, H_Hat) reports "Halting", then they would say that,
>>>>>>> wouldn't they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it turns out that H isn't a Turing machine but a C/x86
>>>>>>> program, and
>>>>>>> that they are refusing to provide the source, then really the whole
>>>>>>> thing must be dismissed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However if they say that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts, and H(H_Hat,H_Hat)
>>>>>>> reports non-halting, and they can prove that H is correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no reason at all to think that H is /not/ correct. But
>>>>>> since H
>>>>>> is not reporting on the halting of a call to H_Hat(H_Hat), I don't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> what's interesting about it being correct. Do you really think it's
>>>>>> "deciding" some interesting property of the "input"?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can't follow all the arguments, and they seem to shift over time.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's important to separate out all the difference kinds of
>>>> nonsense he has produced over the years because they require different
>>>> responses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It actually makes more sense to simply drop endless rehashing of
>>> points that have already been resolved and focus on what is currently
>>> being proposed.
>>
>> Except none of your points HAVE been resolved, except to show that you
>> are wrong about them.
>>
>
> There is only one point that is unresolved.

That you are just a pathological liar.

>
> *This has been resolved despite that fact that liars disagree*

Maybe you have convinced yourself, but you haven't actually PROVED any
of them, so they are not really resolved

> (1) Whether or not the C function H(P,P)==0 on the basis of whether or
> not the correct x86 emulation of the input finite strings of machine
> language of P would ever reach its "ret" instruction.

Since the CORRECT x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) IS the execution
of P(P), which Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, you haven't shown this.

Maybe you have some unfounded definition of some of the terms to allow
you to make the claims with a straight face, but they are not correct.

>
> (2) Whether or not H(P,P) must report on anything other than the actual
> behavior that its input actually specifies.

Since the "Actual Behavior" of the input to H(P,P), is BY DEFINITION,
the behavior of P(P), yes H MUST report on that.

Again, maybe you have some unfounded definitions of the terms to let you
try to make the claims, but they are not correct.

>
> int sum(int X, int Y)
> {
>   return X + Y;
> }
>
>
> Goofy people will say that it does, as if the function sum(4,3) must
> always also derive the current price of tea in China.

YOU are the only person who says that sum(4,3) shouldn't return 7, and
the fact you make this point just shows how out of whack your brain is.

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

No new comments, already has been shows to be just a bunch of garbage.

You are proving your ignorance and stupidity.

That is going to be your legacy, that Peter Olcott was a pathological
liar that didn't understand anytning he made claims about.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor