On 2/23/2022 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 2/23/22 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/23/22 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/22 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem is you just don't understand what a Turing Machine is.
>>>>>
>>>>> H only partially simulates what the machine does.
>>>>
>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ simulates its input until it proves that this
>>>> input cannot possibly reach its final state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which it can only do if it NEVER aborts, because if embedded_H (and
>>> thus H) goes to H.Qn then H^ also goes to H^.Qn and Halts.
>>>
>>> You keep forgetting this.
>>
>> I really don't have any black cats in my living room.
>> Sure you do I can prove that you have a white dog in your kitchen.
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn has nothing to do with the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ going to
>> ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
>
> Then you aren't working on the Halting problem and are just a
> pathological liar.
>
>
>>
>> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ directly depends on embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ terminating its simulation.

If embedded_H never aborted its input then Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ would transition to
Ĥ.qn ???

>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not directly depend on the behavior of Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> at all.
>>
>
> WRONG.
It is never the case that any decider ever depends on any non-input.
That you don't know this proves that you simply don't know enough
computer science.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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