On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best to put them on ignore.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you can set your newsreader to delete messages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Umm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do realize that that IP address belongs to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is some irony here since someone (I can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always count everything that I have been told as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you should try applying that to some of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I am wrong because they are attached to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No they are not. You simply do not believe that this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only if H never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You never notice that this input never halts whether or not
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final
>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
>>>>>>>>>>>> countless times you must either be a liar or have actual
>>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the
>>>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs:
>>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> You either have brain damage or are a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
>>>>>> is infinitely recursive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
>>>>> it FAILED.
>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>> [00000946](01)  55              push ebp
>>>> [00000947](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000949](02)  ebfe            jmp 00000949
>>>> [0000094b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>> [0000094c](01)  c3              ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
>>>
>>> This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
>>> committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>
>>
>> If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
>> you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
>> close to an accurate review of my work.
>>
>
> You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone might
> beleive you.
>
> I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
>
> I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
> its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so it
> doesn't exist.

That is freaking nuts.

Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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