On 4/17/2022 5:03 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 19:35:07 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/16/2022 1:26 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 18:04:42 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/16/2022 11:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:36:53 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 17:10:44 UTC+1, richar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/22 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 10:35 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 15:42:22 UTC+1, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2022 8:59 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, 16 April 2022 at 14:31:29 UTC+1, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:51:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is absolutely no reason to believe that idiot is dying at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accelerated rate. He is a troll who lies about everything if it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You think there is no such thing as cancer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drag a dialogue partner along. But I do believe that he is dying of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laughter at all the nonsense threads he can generate and support. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with that, why is that a rule, and even if it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rule, why is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it so irritating to you? You would likely be able to generate more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> threads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you didn't look like a cantakerous jerk, although maybe you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would prefer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it your way. Your way of acting and presenting yourself,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what you think inwardly in your mind and don't say, isn't up to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure doesn't mean his brain is actually working; it probably isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he is auto deluded or it is and he is an utter fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His brain sounds fine to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think PO is trolling. He's too persistent for that. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> sometimes he
>>>>>>>>>>>> makes errors that that make him look foolish, such as saying that a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 steps. That goes
>>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>>> trollish psychology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My big issue with Turing machines is that none of them can move the tape
>>>>>>>>>>> head more than one position at a time. This makes them intolerably
>>>>>>>>>>> tedious for expressing any significant algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You should try to write a few Turing machines, however. An "even/odd"
>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't be too tedious to write. It's hard to present youself as an
>>>>>>>>>> expert on
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machines if you've never constructed one.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People that are honest can see that the meaning of my words proves that
>>>>>>>>> I am correct. If they are not paying enough attention to the meaning of
>>>>>>>>> my words because they do not believe that I have credibility this too is
>>>>>>>>> dishonesty on their part.
>>>>>>>> Nope. You like to use the wrong meaning to words as a way to LIE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The even odd decider would require me to carefully study this 15 pages
>>>>>>>>> of text: http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone already knows that I can write this because I have specified
>>>>>>>>> its correct design. Traverse the finite string of binary digits until
>>>>>>>>> space. Backup one position. If tape location == 0 then even else odd.
>>>>>>>> Nope, until you actually show it, we assume that you can't because you
>>>>>>>> have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding even these simple
>>>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Welcome to be proved wrong by you actually posting an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PO's description of the principle on which an even/odd decider could be
>>>>>>> built was corrrect. So he's halfway there and should be capable of doing
>>>>>>> the other half, which is actually specifying a machine in some language,
>>>>>>> I've suggested a free online simulator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now is his big opportunity to triumph over his detractors. For once,
>>>>>>> you will not be able to conclude a post with the word "FAIL".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see if he takes it.
>>>>>> That is like not believing that a brain surgeon can change a bed pan
>>>>>> until you actually see the brain surgeon change the bed pan.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are capable of writing an even/odd decider. But others
>>>>> maybe don't.
>>>>> I do think you would struggle to extend to more complicated machines,
>>>>> but writing the even/odd decider would be a start. Then you could try
>>>>> something a bit more difficult. It's always the way. No one is let loose
>>>>> as a brain surgeon on his first day at medical school, or even on his first
>>>>> day after medical school, though he might have a good idea of the principles
>>>>> on which brain surgery operates. You start with simple tasks, and, after
>>>>> achieving them successfully, that gives you the basis on which to advance
>>>>> a step.
>>>> THIS IS THE ONLY POINT THAT I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS:
>>>> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
>>>> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.
>>>> EVERY OTHER POINT IS A DISHONEST DODGE.
>>>>
>>> Looks like we're not going to get a TM. You must understand that some people
>>> will conclude that the real reason is that you are incapable of writing one.
>>> I don't think this is true. I think you can do it, but not off pat. You'll need to
>>> enter a few machines into the online simulator and run and debug them before
>>> you get a working even/odd decider. That's quite normal for someone writing their
>>> first machine.
>>>
>>> Then, for achnage, everyone will be forced to acknowledge that you are right
>>> and Richard (I think said you weee incapable of it) is wrong. Don't you think
>>> that would greatly help you?

>> I only need the God damned liars to quit their God damned lying, all the
>> rest is merely one kind of head game or another.

>> The easily verified fact is that the input to H(P,P) is not halting thus
>> H(P,P)==false is necessarily correct.

>> This equally applies to embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ rejecting its input.
>> --
>> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
>>
>> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
>> Genius hits a target no one else can see."
>>
> Writing a machine is not a "head game".

Please see this post:
My Dishonest reviewers: André, Ben, Mike, Dennis, Richard V3

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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