On 12/4/21 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 9:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/2/21 8:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 02/12/2021 23:54, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/2/21 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 4:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 15:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:52 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 14:44, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 3:25 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-02 13:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/2/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-01 21:07, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If for any number of N steps that simulating halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates its input (X,Y) X never reaches its final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state then we know that X never halts and H is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct to abort the simulation of this input and return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What on earth is N?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary element of the set of positive integers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And right below I explain why this leads to a nonsensical
>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation. Of course, you ignored this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because there exists no N in the set of positive integers such
>>>>>>>>>> that N steps of the simulation of the input H(X,Y) stops
>>>>>>>>>> running we correctly conclude that (this invocation invariant
>>>>>>>>>> proves) the input to H(X,Y) never stops running.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you mean 'every N' rather than 'any N'. But this just
>>>>>>>>> amounts to saying that if X doesn't halt that it is
>>>>>>>>> non-halting, so why bring up N at all?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because my reviewers seem too dense to comprehend it any other way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your "reviewers" can't understand 'every' and insist you use 'any'?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But your decider, if it decides to abort its input, must do so
>>>>>>>>> after some FINITE number of steps, so it cannot actually test
>>>>>>>>> for 'every N'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you test every N in mathematical induction? (Of course not
>>>>>>>> you dumb bunny).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nowhere does your 'proof' make use of anything even remotely
>>>>>>> analogous to mathematical induction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, the relevant property P(n) is proven for the base case,
>>>>>> which often corresponds to n = 0 or n = 1. Then we assume that
>>>>>> P(n) is true, and we prove P(n+1). The proof for the base case(s)
>>>>>> and the proof that allows us to go from P(n) to P(n+1) provide a
>>>>>> method to prove the property for any given m >= 0 by successively
>>>>>> proving P(0), P(1), ..., P(m). We can't actually perform the
>>>>>> infinity of proves necessary for all choices of m >= 0, but the
>>>>>> recipe that we provided assures us that such a proof exists for
>>>>>> all choices of m.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To reduce the possibility of error, we will structure all our
>>>>>> induction proofs rigidly, always highlighting the following four
>>>>>> parts:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The general statement of what we want to prove;
>>>>>> The specification of the set we will perform induction on;
>>>>>> The statement and proof of the base case(s);
>>>>>
>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>>> The statement of the induction hypothesis (generally, we will
>>>>>> assume that P(n) holds, but sometimes we need stronger
>>>>>> assumptions, see below), the statement of P(n+1) and proof of the
>>>>>> induction step (or case).
>>>>>
>>>>> And where is the PROOF?
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs312/2004fa/lectures/lecture9.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,0)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N)   P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> Simulate_Steps(P,P,N+1) P(P) does not reach its final state.
>>>>>> ∴ the input to H(P,P) never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> These are just STATEMENTS, you haven't PROVED anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess that just shows mow much you LIE.
>>>>
>>>> You call PO a liar quite a lot, but to be a liar PO would need to be
>>>> deliberately trying to deceive you.  Do you think that's the case?
>>>> Or is it reasonable to think that PO /believes/ what he said above
>>>> is a genuine application of the mathematical principle of induction.
>>>> [Yes, PO has no logical /grounds/ for thinking that, since he lacks
>>>> any understanding of the principle, but the question is about what
>>>> PO /believes/.]
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I would say PO genuinely doesn't understand that his
>>>> arguments are idiotic, due to some psychological/neural problem.  I
>>>> see his claims and reasoning he puts forward for them more akin to
>>>> confabulation, where a patient invents memories and explanations for
>>>> a state of affairs they believe to be true, without necessarily
>>>> having any deceptive intent.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, there are cases where PO repeats claims (like where he
>>>> repeats his obviously false claim to have had fully coded TMs a
>>>> couple of years ago), even AFTER it is explained that what he is
>>>> saying does not correspond to accepted wording of the terms used,
>>>> and so is simply false.  Maybe it's hard to swallow that this might
>>>> not be direct lying on PO's part, but even in these situations I
>>>> suspect his mind/memory/understanding is so "malleable" that /to
>>>> him/ it really does seem that he was telling the truth all the time??
>>>>
>>>> I don't really /know/ whether PO is conciously lying in these cases,
>>>> but it does seem to me that PO is so thoroughly DELUDED that he
>>>> could look at someone holding up 4 fingers and convince himself
>>>> that, yes there are 4 fingers, but also it is correct that there are
>>>> 5, or 3, for some reason!  (And genuinely believe that - not just be
>>>> lying about it...) He is perhaps the ideal citizen of Oceana!  :)
>>>> Or, perhaps in his heart he knows he is making false claims - not
>>>> easy to say either way.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a bigger point is that it doesn't really matter either way
>>>> whether PO is actually lying or confabulating or some third option -
>>>> I'm not even sure the distinction is meaningful in PO's case.  What
>>>> he says is all totally irrelevant, and even if someone "proved" the
>>>> PO was "lying" it would make no difference whatsoever to anything...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>
>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why one
>> is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the expertise
>> etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>
>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>
>>>
>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>
>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>
>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others -
>> and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence that
>> PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to others
>> points.
>>
>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something everybody
>> else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>
>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of reason"
>> is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying, right? ]
>>
>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>> in my books, still lying.
>>
>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even trying
>> because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes himself
>> into believing those facts aren't important because he has some
>> superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving "categorically
>> exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>
>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>
>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people were
>> saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation on an
>> academic level with such a person?
>>
>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>
>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/ the
>> reality of the situation, but there are many examples of delusional
>> frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem very
>> strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>
>
> The real problem is that you are either too stupid or dishonest to
> acknowledge this obvious fact:
>
> On 12/3/2021 6:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Whenever the pure simulation of the input to simulating halt decider
> > H(x,y) never stops running unless H aborts its simulation H correctly
> > aborts this simulation and returns 0 for not halting.
> >
>
>

And you are too stupid to see the flaw in your argument caused by sloppy
language.

H needs to be a SPECIFIC decider.

If for a GIVEN H, and the P built from it, we have that

H(P,P) returns 0, then it is clear that when we run P(P) as a
computation THAT P(P) will call H and that H will do a simulation of a
COPY of P(P), and H will abort THAT COPY, and return 0 to the calling P
and that P will return and halt.

Thus the outer P is shown to run and halt in finite time purely on its
own (using ITS copy of H), and thus is clearly a Halting Computation.

This means that the P that H is simulating will have exactly the same
behavior, and thus H MSUT have used incorrect logic to decide that it
was Non-Halting. PERIOD.

Outer H run, outer H halts on its own. Something ELSE was aborted, so
that doesn't affect this logic.

Your mind seems to have lost the ability to distinguish between things
that are distinct even if they are similar. It is just broken.

You have lost the concept of there actually being something that is True
and have put your own opinions above what is actually true, and have
lost all connection with reality.

I am sure you are going to just ignore me again, but perhaps someday,
hopefully before it is too late, something will seep in and get you to
seek real help to handle your mental condition.

You have made comments in the past that show a belief in the eternal,
just remember what those say about those who don't look at what is
ACTUALLY true.

Truth will not tolerate lies to be in its presence, and if you hold onto
false ideas, you will not be there with it.