Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Memory fault - where am I?


devel / comp.theory / Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

SubjectAuthor
* Question for OlcottMr Flibble
`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 | |     `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |      `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       | | `- Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       | `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |  `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |   +- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |   `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |    `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |     `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      +* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      |`* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |      | `- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |      `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | +* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |+- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | |`* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | | +- Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |       |       | | `* Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   +* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |`* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   | `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]André G. Isaak
 |       |       | |   |   |  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Python
 |       |       | |   |   |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   |    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]olcott
 |       |       | |   |   |     `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   |   `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]Richard Damon
 |       |       | |   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |    `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |     `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |      `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |       `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |        +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |        `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |         +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |         `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |          +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |          `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |           +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |           `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |            +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Daniel Pehoushek
 |       |       | |            `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |             +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |             `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |              +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |              `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |               +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |               `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                 +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                 `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                  +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                  `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                   +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                   `* Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | |                    +- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]olcott
 |       |       | |                    `- Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]Dennis Bush
 |       |       | `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       |       `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |       `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 |        `* Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]olcott
 |         `- Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]Richard Damon
 +* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Alan Mackenzie
 |||`- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 ||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Richard Damon
 ||||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Ben
 |||| `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 ||||  `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]Richard Damon
 ||||   `* Question for Olcott [ making reals countable ]olcott
 |||+* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Malcolm McLean
 |||`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]Jeff Barnett
 ||`- Question for Olcott [ technical competence ]olcott
 |`* Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]olcott
 `- Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]wij

Pages:123456
Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]

<0YWiK.3548$vAW9.2684@fx10.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32979&group=comp.theory#32979

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx10.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: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<xBWiK.30170$J0r9.13850@fx11.iad>
<pO-dnfmJ08Z3qxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <pO-dnfmJ08Z3qxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <0YWiK.3548$vAW9.2684@fx10.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:57:16 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5776
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 01:57 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/23/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H can
>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>
>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant,  because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>
>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an
>>> infinite simulation would never halt without performing an infinite
>>> simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it can detect SOME infinite loops,
>
> My whole point is that it is very obvious that it does correctly detect
> infinite behavior without infinite simulation as Jackass implied.
>
> You strive very diligently to make sure to always miss the point even
> when this point is reemphasized hundreds of times.
>

"Obvious" isn't "Proof", especially when based on incorrect assumptions.

YOU seem to have a blind spot for truth, and ignore anything that
doesn't match your incorrect ideas, this just makes you locked into your
gaslighten ignorance.

The "Point" is that your logic seems to be based on using fallacies and
illogic to try to "prove" your point.

I am not sure you even know how to start a proof of your thesis, as to
do so you would need to start from some actual accepts facts and build a
bridge to your idea. This seems beyond your ability, as I don't think I
have seen a single actually connect chain of reasoning out of you.

You will rotely quote some definiton, and then not actually USE it in
your next sentence but just claim something that the definition doesn't
actually support based on words that are sort of the same as some of the
words in the definition.

That is not logic, that is illogic, and results in invalid and unsound
conclusions.

Until you learn how to actually PROVE something, you are just killing
your reputation.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]

<9%WiK.8737$tLd9.2569@fx98.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32980&group=comp.theory#32980

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx98.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: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<WQViK.7425$Rvub.2591@fx35.iad>
<N6ednbZhJ6HhsxH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<5qWiK.8598$xZtb.2454@fx41.iad>
<7PadnQcSROZYqBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <gRWiK.6581$GTEb.47@fx48.iad>
<d9WdnbU5sMzVpxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <d9WdnbU5sMzVpxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <9%WiK.8737$tLd9.2569@fx98.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:00:37 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9075
X-Original-Bytes: 8942
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:00 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/23/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/23/22 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/22 7:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>> actual validation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts, when
>>>>>>>> that is the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number of
>>>>>>> steps (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>>>> pair of pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>>>> would ever reach the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
>>>>>> it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
>>>>> That is a despicable lie and you know it.
>>>>> You are an atheist right?
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with it. What do YOU define a "Correct Simulation" to
>>>> be, other than that which simualtes to program that it is simulating?
>>>
>>> It is a God damned lie and you know it.
>>> That is the only thing that is wrong with it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Note, PROGRAM)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No concern what-so-ever with the eternal incineration of
>>>>> Revelations 21:8 for lying because you simply don't believe that
>>>>> mumbo jumbo, right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU are the one that needs to worry about it. I am following the
>>>> definitions of what things are.
>>>
>>>
>>> You know that you are not following the definition of the x86
>>> langugae. Why lie does that give you A thrill?
>>
>> No, YOU violate it by making a call instruction not be traced to the
>> location it is called.
>>
>> What error have I made about the x86 language, be specific YOU will be
>> guilty of lying.
>>
> >>>>> I have show a CORRECT simulation of the input to H(P,P) that shows
> >>>>> it reaching the final state, as have YOU.
>
>

What do you define as a CORRECT simulation?

What was wrong with what I said as a Correct Simulation (or what you
published)

YOU DID publish such a trace (see below)

On 4/27/21 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
Message-ID: <Teudndbu59GVBBr9nZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
> u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
> if (Input_Halts)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
>
> int main()
> {
> H_Hat((u32)H_Hat);
> }
>
>
> _H_Hat()
> [00000b98](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000b99](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>
[00000b9b](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000b9c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000b9f](01) 50 push eax
> [00000ba0](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000ba3](01) 51 push ecx
> [00000ba4](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> [00000ba9](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00000bac](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00000baf](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00000bb3](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> [00000bb5](02) ebfe jmp 00000bb5
> [00000bb7](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> [00000bb9](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bba](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00000bba]
>
> _main()
> [00000bc8](01) 55 push ebp
> [00000bc9](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00000bcb](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> [00000bd0](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> [00000bd5](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00000bd8](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [00000bda](01) 5d pop ebp
> [00000bdb](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [00000bdb]
>
> ===============================
> ...[00000bc8][001015d4][00000000](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000bc9][001015d4][00000000](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000bcb][001015d0][00000b98](05) 68980b0000 push 00000b98
> ...[00000bd0][001015cc][00000bd5](05) e8c3ffffff call 00000b98
> ...[00000b98][001015c8][001015d4](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][001015c4][00000000](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][001015c4][00000000](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][001015c0][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][001015c0][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][001015bc][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][001015b8][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:b98
> ...[00000b98][00211674][00211678](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][00211674][00211678](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][00211670][00201644](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][00211670][00201644](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0021166c][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0021166c][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][00211668][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][00211664][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> ...[00000b98][0025c09c][0025c0a0](01) 55 push ebp
> ...[00000b99][0025c09c][0025c0a0](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000b9b][0025c098][0024c06c](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000b9c][0025c098][0024c06c](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000b9f][0025c094][00000b98](01) 50 push eax
> ...[00000ba0][0025c094][00000b98](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000ba3][0025c090][00000b98](01) 51 push ecx
> ...[00000ba4][0025c08c][00000ba9](05) e88ffdffff call 00000938
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

Above decision was from the call the Halts inside H_Hat, deciding that
H_Hat(H_Hat) seems to be non-halting, it then returns that answer and is
processed below:

> ...[00000ba9][001015c4][00000000](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> ...[00000bac][001015c4][00000000](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> ...[00000baf][001015c4][00000000](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> ...[00000bb3][001015c4][00000000](02) 7402 jz 00000bb7
> ...[00000bb7][001015c8][001015d4](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> ...[00000bb9][001015cc][00000bd5](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bba][001015d0][00000b98](01) c3 ret
> ...[00000bd5][001015d4][00000000](03) 83c404 add esp,+04
> ...[00000bd8][001015d4][00000000](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> ...[00000bda][001015d8][00100000](01) 5d pop ebp
> ...[00000bdb][001015dc][00000098](01) c3 ret


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]

<T1XiK.2758$qt97.737@fx97.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32981&group=comp.theory#32981

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx97.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: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <T1XiK.2758$qt97.737@fx97.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:03:31 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 5973
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:03 UTC

On 5/23/22 9:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps
>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>>>>>>>> pair of
>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns
>>>>>>>>> H can
>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>
>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>
>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>
>>
>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then
>> Pn, which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>
>
> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.

Nope, that isn't the way it works.
>
>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you
>> keep on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how
>> much is simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus
>> giving them distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.

And the P you list is NOT a suitable P to define the PROGRAM/Compuation
P with, as it is NOT complete.

It is a Program Fragment, which does NOT make a computation.

This means your whole argument is proved invalid, and reveals your level
of knowledge about such things (or more accurately, the lack thereof).

>

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32982&group=comp.theory#32982

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:64c:b0:2f9:a4c:b4f0 with SMTP id a12-20020a05622a064c00b002f90a4cb4f0mr18615728qtb.380.1653358152008;
Mon, 23 May 2022 19:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:4f8f:0:b0:300:2e69:7c43 with SMTP id
d137-20020a814f8f000000b003002e697c43mr496350ywb.99.1653358151747; Mon, 23
May 2022 19:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:09:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:09 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>
> >>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>
> >>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>
> >> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>
> >
> > If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> > which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >
> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> > Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> > on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> > simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> > distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.

Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa. So that way when you say "if H simulated an infinite number of steps" we can differentiate that H (i.e. Hn) from the original H (i.e. Ha).

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32983&group=comp.theory#32983

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:18:30 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:18:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 102
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LzEJxSYLN9JzrmE8P2MibTOxTdegKcMUmIZbaHvtHRanB+zK3M2sln8HgNsDQA7mYH/RVk5ZMAP0VOo!mI0NBR7x6rIXoSRTmAko87r9xtOb7ofaNCpdt2XYxuiDYXoK427jNZGNCwiWY+NBymWwgLpCSuE=
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: 6379
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:18 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>
>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>
>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>
> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.

No we will not.

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32984&group=comp.theory#32984

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2988:b0:6a0:53e7:ed48 with SMTP id r8-20020a05620a298800b006a053e7ed48mr15872173qkp.604.1653358999802;
Mon, 23 May 2022 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ef0b:0:b0:64f:d512:6ae6 with SMTP id
g11-20020a25ef0b000000b0064fd5126ae6mr8729039ybd.347.1653358999651; Mon, 23
May 2022 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:23:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 7939
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:23 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>
> >>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>
> >> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >
> > Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> No we will not.

We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.

So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain..

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.

Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<zKydnQjHRoiD3xH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32985&group=comp.theory#32985

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:25:34 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:25:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <zKydnQjHRoiD3xH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 111
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-XpZrHd/P0isBZ7CaqAc1DaQTY0uy+tCNr3YwTxI3UM+AGsX8/59B4I99qCSJBjPBd5MUa3cxuxV4IgX!BMTU7d56dYP2WBgygnGAdsvwB9GoUj3JMw2JZrj2ybRNjitJVuAwRV5LNV1mDDMnLSOEwEtHc60=
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: 7418
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:25 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>
>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>
>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>> No we will not.
>
> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>
> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>
> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa)

It is off topic, I am only talking about H(P,P)

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]

<c0dd9da5-4d50-4b09-a90c-0cfaacf6b4d5n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32986&group=comp.theory#32986

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:188:b0:2f9:1ceb:6a0e with SMTP id s8-20020a05622a018800b002f91ceb6a0emr13435770qtw.285.1653359414807;
Mon, 23 May 2022 19:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:4d1:0:b0:650:1f96:27e8 with SMTP id
u17-20020a5b04d1000000b006501f9627e8mr3863754ybp.607.1653359414585; Mon, 23
May 2022 19:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <zKydnQjHRoiD3xH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com> <zKydnQjHRoiD3xH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c0dd9da5-4d50-4b09-a90c-0cfaacf6b4d5n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Richard continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:30:14 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 8771
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:30 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:25:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>
> >>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >> No we will not.
> >
> > We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >
> > So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >
> > Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa)
> It is off topic, I am only talking about H(P,P)

Does the fixed algorithm of H abort? If so, then we are in fact talking about Ha(Pa,Pa).

This is your only warning: explain why the below is wrong or implicitly admit it is correct:

Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.

If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32987&group=comp.theory#32987

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:32:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:32:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 126
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-JDcY5AJ2cUFbO3amOI2GBwVNhy7w7wvkyDrm5uiN67/OPFm+8PZEuYYSsw8kYtQ2etNhtC7ax0I0G9D!JgJ/bfAwBug8cTS899tZPpiYhoBHtTEIrAc8cxhC9h3ZKzN2I15b++v1yv2sm0aSB/ouExQjC84=
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: 8202
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:32 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>
>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>
>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>> No we will not.
>
> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>
> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>
> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>

It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
be brown.

Ha(Pa,Pa)
Hb(Pa,Pa)
Simulate(Pa,Pa)

are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.

> If you mean "what if Pa called Hn instead of Ha" then you don't have Pa anymore. You have Pn. In that case, you ARE in fact saying that because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct, which makes no sense.
>
>

--
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: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<rtydnYEcvKYA2BH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32988&group=comp.theory#32988

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:40:29 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:40:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<zKydnQjHRoiD3xH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<c0dd9da5-4d50-4b09-a90c-0cfaacf6b4d5n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <c0dd9da5-4d50-4b09-a90c-0cfaacf6b4d5n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <rtydnYEcvKYA2BH_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 132
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-dIQC7LKD489UgPXAYuMON0fMMyU0ivfkSNSvW/PO4SEPqLSqDVGF3Zc8bYmrTN1dphNpxEx/gy+ZqCK!AeAN4ae16QFB5/2ehIkyHF9OgcTsNp9qYvoirNP9TWpTdywqFDRgPPr7RYFq2aYKTU1VJYu9OTw=
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: 8892
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:40 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:30 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:25:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>> No we will not.
>>>
>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>
>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>
>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa)
>> It is off topic, I am only talking about H(P,P)
>
> Does the fixed algorithm of H abort? If so, then we are in fact talking about Ha(Pa,Pa).
>
> This is your only warning: explain why the below is wrong or implicitly admit it is correct:
>
> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32989&group=comp.theory#32989

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:258e:b0:680:f33c:dbcd with SMTP id x14-20020a05620a258e00b00680f33cdbcdmr16456410qko.542.1653360055453;
Mon, 23 May 2022 19:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d209:0:b0:64e:405:bf40 with SMTP id
j9-20020a25d209000000b0064e0405bf40mr24458117ybg.101.1653360055294; Mon, 23
May 2022 19:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:40:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com> <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:40:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:40 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>
> >>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >> No we will not.
> >
> > We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >
> > So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >
> > Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >
> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> be brown.
>
> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>
> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]

<4EXiK.4291$Dr6.2848@fx06.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32990&group=comp.theory#32990

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx06.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: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 173
Message-ID: <4EXiK.4291$Dr6.2848@fx06.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:44:15 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 9029
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:44 UTC

On 5/23/22 10:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop
>>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an
>>>>>>>>> infinite
>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite
>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are
>>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic,
>>>>>> then Pn,
>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the
>>>>> topic.
>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H
>>>>>> you keep
>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how
>>>>>> much is
>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving
>>>>>> them
>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string
>>>>> named H
>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>
>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>> No we will not.
>>
>> We all know exactly why not.  Because by being clear about which H and
>> which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and
>> makes it clear exactly where the problem is.  So as Ben has said,
>> clarity is your enemy.
>>
>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.  Failure to
>> explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as
>> not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is
>> correct.  Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a
>> failure to explain.
>>
>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is
>> done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the
>> input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have
>> no basis to claim otherwise.
>>
>
> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> be brown.
>
> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>
> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32991&group=comp.theory#32991

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:48:32 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 21:48:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 155
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-9sEZsioSw0p46x397YuC8ldX+4A5D80NtGt8BUo5/oh+jRbya193uflu732OJA+hKsZrCvtgOK5BWK0!VJIkrHTv6VpqPbpspvWu+Ihbz30ogjpYz6fwnqlHStGLKKsu1sX/D4lN7gfmTYBRLoAmCnWXPyM=
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: 10099
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:48 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>> No we will not.
>>>
>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>
>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>
>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>
>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>> be brown.
>>
>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>
>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>
> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32992&group=comp.theory#32992

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:2485:b0:462:4bf3:a817 with SMTP id gi5-20020a056214248500b004624bf3a817mr2966427qvb.82.1653361061882;
Mon, 23 May 2022 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a5b:6c1:0:b0:633:b5c7:b9b7 with SMTP id
r1-20020a5b06c1000000b00633b5c7b9b7mr24653158ybq.67.1653361061715; Mon, 23
May 2022 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 19:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com> <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com> <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:57:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:57 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive..
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>> No we will not.
> >>>
> >>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>
> >>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>
> >>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>
> >> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >> be brown.
> >>
> >> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>
> >> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >
> > I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >
> P does not call anything besides H


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]

<BRXiK.30172$J0r9.19532@fx11.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32993&group=comp.theory#32993

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.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: Question for Olcott [ Olcott continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<pRUiK.16356$Fikb.1563@fx33.iad>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <BRXiK.30172$J0r9.19532@fx11.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: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:58:41 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 10775
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 02:58 UTC

On 5/23/22 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are
>>>>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic,
>>>>>>>> then Pn,
>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the
>>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H
>>>>>>>> you keep
>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how
>>>>>>>> much is
>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus
>>>>>>>> giving them
>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string
>>>>>>> named H
>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>
>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H
>>>> and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your
>>>> argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben
>>>> has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>
>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure
>>>> to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken
>>>> as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that
>>>> it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be
>>>> taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>
>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps
>>>> is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And
>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes
>>>> the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and
>>>> you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>
>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>> be brown.
>>>
>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>
>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>
>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to
>> back that up.  Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the
>> same exact input.
>>
>
> P does not call anything besides H therefore Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are
> not the same and because you have always known this you are still a
> liar, yet this time we add damned, so you are a damned liar.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32994&group=comp.theory#32994

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:01:49 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:01:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 138
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-BqM1NSwOprFH9QcHi/4EC3f3qmt8dg1bPAdVcptXDixVma9+osb6FzabLvxqRu6JGjzck9ZMcyCXehE!OKOIVjJIAZ16MjzHMd48Uy2pRvoJypnkLSTHy3RvrIomcIxSXFU76nsNuhoGYN28IXypds5a8NA=
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: 9284
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 03:01 UTC

On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>
>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>> be brown.
>>>>
>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>
>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>
>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>
>> P does not call anything besides H
>
> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32995&group=comp.theory#32995

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:4589:b0:6a4:2e05:9f50 with SMTP id bp9-20020a05620a458900b006a42e059f50mr2341582qkb.747.1653361518971;
Mon, 23 May 2022 20:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:1154:0:b0:2fe:d5a4:f26b with SMTP id
81-20020a811154000000b002fed5a4f26bmr27263836ywr.140.1653361518788; Mon, 23
May 2022 20:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <zcGdnS8CkLZYgBH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ca91188b-a66e-4d24-93f8-3f3d54f315cdn@googlegroups.com> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com> <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com> <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 03:05:18 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 10319
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 03:05 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct.. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>> be brown.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
> >>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>
> >>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
> >>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
> >>>
> >>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
> >>>
> >> P does not call anything besides H
> >
> > And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
> How dishonest can you get?
> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>
> Because they have entirely different execution traces


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32996&group=comp.theory#32996

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:08:47 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:08:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 143
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FNYZPyD3vUlzEiW5HPnduFCXgDf3Z0rjKOMJhfw/ywDsxleQGcXqWOznkxDa/V9sYjUhM+vz3lf1or8!yHQzMRWAayVaZJOkHnBlheGwiapV5q95Vbgc4wcRkYv/hP+AkY7MM36hgXwvf5WrZpRAL9NWsTs=
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: 9845
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 03:08 UTC

On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>
>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>
>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>> How dishonest can you get?
>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>
>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>
> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]

<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32997&group=comp.theory#32997

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5d8b:0:b0:2f3:df07:d752 with SMTP id d11-20020ac85d8b000000b002f3df07d752mr18568929qtx.528.1653362171389;
Mon, 23 May 2022 20:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a81:fe04:0:b0:2fe:f6cb:a864 with SMTP id
j4-20020a81fe04000000b002fef6cba864mr25741708ywn.112.1653362171187; Mon, 23
May 2022 20:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 20:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.168.165.242; posting-account=ejFcQgoAAACAt5i0VbkATkR2ACWdgADD
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.168.165.242
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <jK-dnRFuFooesBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<3e87e4a0-7566-4d72-9dad-135f8de5ca77n@googlegroups.com> <eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com> <ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com> <7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad> <d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com> <R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com> <rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com> <j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com> <jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com> <eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ Dennis continues to be a liar ]
From: dbush.mo...@gmail.com (Dennis Bush)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 03:16:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 11245
 by: Dennis Bush - Tue, 24 May 2022 03:16 UTC

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
> >>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
> >>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
> >>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
> >>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
> >>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
> >>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
> >>>>>>>> No we will not.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
> >>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
> >>>>>> be brown.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
> >>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=32998&group=comp.theory#32998

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.software-eng comp.lang.c comp.lang.c++
Followup: comp.theory,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.logic
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!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:47:48 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 22:47:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<eN6dnWCaqdeCrRH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
Followup-To: comp.theory,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.logic
In-Reply-To: <9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 179
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-GwoxDKoeBk4QacmSoP01e2KD3CnjGA0HkTA+EXFOgA+vaEF8CgMq1uEY1EulXjGOCSGbV18NdTebRoy!dBpLEUK1GbYsguYS7uUOnvu13uzaIFU1/lA7kEr5VJjkuLWAlr/USHWSU0N7K27+ogytgcoGILk=
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: 11684
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 03:47 UTC

On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn) are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement. Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot is black
>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover cannot
>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>
>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>
>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>
>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>
>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>
> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the traces differ, then that would also mean that


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]

<%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33000&group=comp.theory#33000

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.nat-lang sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx37.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: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<da91a2cf-b463-4bb4-9f8c-1372588e78ebn@googlegroups.com>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Rich...@Damon-Family.org (Richard Damon)
In-Reply-To: <srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 257
Message-ID: <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.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: Tue, 24 May 2022 00:22:18 -0400
X-Received-Bytes: 13488
 by: Richard Damon - Tue, 24 May 2022 04:22 UTC

On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation), thus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about
>>>>>>>>>> which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes
>>>>>>>>>> in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem
>>>>>>>>>> is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.
>>>>>>>>>> Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next post
>>>>>>>>>> will be taken as not being able to explain why it is wrong and
>>>>>>>>>> an acceptance that it is correct. Stating "strawman" without
>>>>>>>>>> an explanation will be taken as a failure to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of
>>>>>>>>>> steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the input
>>>>>>>>>> to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot
>>>>>>>>> is black
>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named Rover
>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>
>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>> to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are
>>>>>>>> given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same as
>>>>>> Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>
>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>
>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>
>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the
>> traces differ, then that would also mean that
>
> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>
> >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
> to back that up.
>
> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>
> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient technical
> background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]

<G9idnYLLS60_whH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33001&group=comp.theory#33001

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory comp.ai.nat-lang sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!rocksolid2!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 23:31:30 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 23:31:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ summing up where we are ][ U LOSE ]
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.nat-lang,sci.logic
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc>
<ArGdnY3gBoVFrhH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<3ec5b74f-af3f-40e3-86de-fd83b82bd839n@googlegroups.com>
<7PadnQYSROauqxH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aIWiK.30171$J0r9.17952@fx11.iad>
<d9Wdnbo5sMxApBH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<6cdebf0d-dec9-4817-98b8-465df41d0f6bn@googlegroups.com>
<R5idnaP4x7nr3RH_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com>
<aed59f99-1f38-4507-afae-f8dcc01e7f70n@googlegroups.com>
<rtydnYYcvKZN3hH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ce9b2db1-58be-4b59-92e2-3b6638eea0bfn@googlegroups.com>
<j9udnW0HafYd2hH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<da0cbf70-a7c3-45b5-9677-e7a29cf01370n@googlegroups.com>
<jPednQZ0LsUA1xH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<6215d4fe-d08b-4549-83e5-db886a595572n@googlegroups.com>
<eNmdneIDVfKi0RH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
<9075edd3-bdb6-48e0-b361-983e19334a34n@googlegroups.com>
<srWdnbxc97b5yBH_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>
From: NoO...@NoWhere.com (olcott)
In-Reply-To: <%3ZiK.132$921.22@fx37.iad>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <G9idnYLLS60_whH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 274
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-TDQ9WahahJeYxoGHgzVZBDs8eK6p45sc8Xmi2rsef17Qlsf/UFphy4YXF+WV0qBxSpChyrb7NvxoVtc!PLWFml/cdfE/GeuuXsYKZ0m6D70VW4iAQGKC3rjKp4CtALb95h8xv/mMX/UwvNnnni++ZkgaAHA=
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: 14503
 by: olcott - Tue, 24 May 2022 04:31 UTC

On 5/23/2022 11:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 5/23/22 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/23/2022 10:16 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/2022 10:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:57 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:48:39 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:40 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:32:55 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:18:37 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 9:09 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:50:28 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:29 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:24:47 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:15 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 9:08:54 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 8:57:46 PM UTC-4, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 7:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-4,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/22 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All things being equal which is more likely:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believability has the word [lie] embedded
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must employ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actual validation conclusively proves that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct. This means that everyone that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagrees is either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently technically competent or a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You consider that H(P,P) == 0 is correct when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P(P) halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the DEFINITION of what H(P,P) is supposed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function H correctly determines that there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (0 to infinity) of its correct simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input: a pair of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointers to finite strings of x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language that would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last instruction of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H has a fixed algorithm, it can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps. It can only simulate P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some n
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less on the basis of matching known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior patterns H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what the behavior of the input would be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it did
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So because Pn(Pn) does not halt then Ha(Pa,Pa)==0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is correct?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No jackass, infinite loop does not halt because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c2](01) 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5](02) ebfe jmp 000012c5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7](01) 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c8](01) c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [000012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because this isn't part of any P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It not irrelevant jackass it proves that H can detect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that an infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation would never halt without performing an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An infinite loop and the infinite simulation in Pn(Pn)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are different,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sure is _Infinite_Loop() is on topic and H(P,P) is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Pn(Pn) is a strawman error intentionally designed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deceive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If _Infinite_Loop, which isn't at all related to P is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, then Pn,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is one of the P's you talk about must be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get to decide what is on topic and what is off topic, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, you confusingly talk about a CLASS of H's since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H you keep
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on mentioning doesn't have a distinct rule (since if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes how much is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates to be every possible length of simulation),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus giving them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct names is a reasonable thing to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am referring to one machine language immutable literal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string named H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and another immutable machine language literal string
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> named P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we'll refer to H as Ha and refer to P as Pa.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No we will not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We all know exactly why not. Because by being clear about
>>>>>>>>>>> which H and which P we're talking about, it exposes the holes
>>>>>>>>>>> in your argument and makes it clear exactly where the problem
>>>>>>>>>>> is. So as Ben has said, clarity is your enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So explain exactly what is wrong with the below statement.
>>>>>>>>>>> Failure to explain in detail why it is wrong in your next
>>>>>>>>>>> post will be taken as not being able to explain why it is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong and an acceptance that it is correct. Stating
>>>>>>>>>>> "strawman" without an explanation will be taken as a failure
>>>>>>>>>>> to explain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) up to an infinite number of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps is done by UTM(Pa,Pa) which halts, so Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And Hb(Pa,Pa)==1 which also shows that Ha(Pa,Pa)==0 is
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. And yes the input to Ha(Pa,Pa) is the same as the
>>>>>>>>>>> input to Hb(Pa,Pa), and you have no basis to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that because the dog named Spot
>>>>>>>>>> is black
>>>>>>>>>> and the cat named Fluffy is white therefore the dog named
>>>>>>>>>> Rover cannot
>>>>>>>>>> be brown.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ha(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>> Hb(Pa,Pa)
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Simulate(Pa,Pa)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> are computationally distinct at the x86 machine language level
>>>>>>>>>> and you have always known this therefore you are a damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have nothing
>>>>>>>>> to back that up. Both Ha and Hb are halt deciders and both are
>>>>>>>>> given the same exact input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> P does not call anything besides H
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And because the fixed algorithm of H aborts, then H is the same
>>>>>>> as Ha and P is therefore the same as Pa.
>>>>>> How dishonest can you get?
>>>>>> It is the same as if you claimed that 5 == 6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because they have entirely different execution traces
>>>>>
>>>>> They're identical up to the point that Ha aborts,
>>>> They are not identical therefore it is either ridiculously stupid to
>>>> claim that they should have the same behavior or in your case (because
>>>> we know that you are not stupid) it would be dishonest.
>>>
>>> If Ha(Pa,Pa) and Hb(Pa,Pa) are not identical because as you claim the
>>> traces differ, then that would also mean that
>>
>> Since you always knew this: that you are a liar when
>> you claimed that they are equivalent.
>>
>>  >>>>>>> I know that you *claim* they are distinct, but you have
>> nothing to back that up.
>>
>> I don't think that we are getting anywhere.
>>
>> All of the recent discussions are simply disagreement with an easily
>> verifiable fact. Any smart software engineer with a sufficient
>> technical background can easily confirm that H(P,P)==0 is correct:
>
> No, they can confirm that it MUST be INCORECT by the requirement of H.
>
> P(P) will Halt if H(P,P) returns 0.
>
> H(P,P) is REQUIRED to return 1 if P(P) halts, that is the DEFINITION of
> a Halting Decider, thus H is wrong.
>
> You are NOT allowed to change the Definition of the problem and still
> claim to be working on the problem.
>
> That is like you saying it is ok to say "I have no dogs in my house"
> when someone asks "Howmany Cats are in your houst?"
>
>>
>> Where H is a C function that correctly emulates its input pair of
>> finite strings of the x86 machine code of function P and criterion for
>> returning 0 is that the simulated P would never reach its "ret"
>> instruction.
>
> Except that it DOESN'T correctly emulates its input if it aborts it.
>
> And your finite string that you claim is P doesn't define the program P
> as it refers to code outside the string. (PROGRAMS are complete, and
> Halting is defined on COMPLETE PROGRAMS).
>
>>
>> The only other remaining objection is whether or not a halt decider
>> must compute the mapping of its input finite strings to an accept or
>> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior actually specified by
>> its input OR SOME OTHER MEASURE.
>
>
> Right, and the BEHAVIOR OF THE INPUT for H(P,P) IS *DEFINED* to be
> whether P(P) Halts or not. Any other defintion and you are not working
> on the Halting Problem.
>>
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>
>>
>
> Just a bunch of garbage that shows you don't know what you are talking
> about. Detail reviews given previously.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> That is all that any of you have and good software engineering refutes
>> the first and good computer science refutes the second.
>
> Nope, GOOD computer science shows that you are not good at computer
> science and fail to comprehend even the basics of it.


Click here to read the complete article
Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33003&group=comp.theory#33003

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: acm...@muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 08:40:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de>
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 08:40:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
logging-data="13948"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (FreeBSD/12.3-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
 by: Alan Mackenzie - Tue, 24 May 2022 08:40 UTC

olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

>> All things being equal which is more likely:

>> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

>> ?

>> /Flibble
>>

> Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> validation.

You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
Olcott is incorrect.

> Actual validation conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0
> is correct.

No it doesn't. You don't understand the big words in that sentence.

> This means that everyone that disagrees is either insufficiently
> technically competent or a liar.

And that's the sort of denigration which is wholly uncalled for, and has
brought the level of this newsgroup down from debating to abuse.

[ .... ]

> --
> Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<1bf47866-dceb-4b0a-8205-092112d082ean@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33004&group=comp.theory#33004

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:887:b0:462:5da8:ad42 with SMTP id cz7-20020a056214088700b004625da8ad42mr20038qvb.69.1653383625803;
Tue, 24 May 2022 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:728:b0:64f:3403:e7df with SMTP id
l8-20020a056902072800b0064f3403e7dfmr24341115ybt.565.1653383625621; Tue, 24
May 2022 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a00:23a8:400a:5601:a42c:c38e:58dc:c017;
posting-account=Dz2zqgkAAADlK5MFu78bw3ab-BRFV4Qn
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a00:23a8:400a:5601:a42c:c38e:58dc:c017
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1bf47866-dceb-4b0a-8205-092112d082ean@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
From: malcolm....@gmail.com (Malcolm McLean)
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:13:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2532
 by: Malcolm McLean - Tue, 24 May 2022 09:13 UTC

On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:
>
> >> All things being equal which is more likely:
>
> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct
>
> > Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
> > Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
> > validation.
> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
> Olcott is incorrect.
>
It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.

If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
in favour of the revision.
However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong, it
can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
within the system.

But that doesn't mean that it's inevitable that the lone man, with few
formal qualifications, in his bedroom, is wrong. You neeed to look at
what he has to say, and take it on its own terms.

Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]

<t6ibkc$31bp$1@news.muc.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/devel/article-flat.php?id=33005&group=comp.theory#33005

 copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: acm...@muc.de (Alan Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Question for Olcott [ correct versus credible ]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:22:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <t6ibkc$31bp$1@news.muc.de>
References: <20220523195242.00006aae@reddwarf.jmc> <8t2dnX7mj7xDRxb_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <t6i5lg$djs$1@news.muc.de> <1bf47866-dceb-4b0a-8205-092112d082ean@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 10:22:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
logging-data="99705"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.4.5-20201224 ("Glen Albyn") (FreeBSD/12.3-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
 by: Alan Mackenzie - Tue, 24 May 2022 10:22 UTC

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 May 2022 at 09:40:19 UTC+1, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <No...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/23/2022 1:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> >> A simple multiple choice question for Olcott:

>> >> All things being equal which is more likely:

>> >> (a) Olcott is correct and everybody else is incorrect
>> >> (b) Olcott is incorrect and everybody else is correct

>> > Believability has the word [lie] embedded directly within itself.
>> > Instead of the fake measure of credibility one must employ actual
>> > validation.
>> You evaded the actual question. It is overwhelmingly more likely that
>> Olcott is incorrect.

> It is, but it's a bad argument from Mr Flibble.

Well, Mr Flibble posed his question in neutral terms, and I think it's a
valid question to ask.

> If someone thinks that the general consensus of informed opinion is
> wrong, there will inevitably be a stage where theirs is the only voice
> in favour of the revision.

I don't really know how long this stage typically lasts, that is for new
facts, arguments, principles to be adopted by a second knowledgeable
person, having been convinced by the first person. But I would guess
it's less than many years.

> However whilst the consensus of informed opinion can be wrong, it
> can also be right. And generally corrections don't come romantically
> from the outsider in his bedroom, but from highly qualified people
> within the system.

Yes.

> But that doesn't mean that it's inevitable that the lone man, with few
> formal qualifications, in his bedroom, is wrong. You neeed to look at
> what he has to say, and take it on its own terms.

Well, I have been doing that mainly as a lurker over the last few years,
though I have posted little here - I don't have any particular expertise
on the matter beyond a degree in maths, and I don't fancy getting
deluged with abuse, which has happened to quite a few people here.

Having looked at what Peter Olcott has to say, over an extended period
of time, it just doesn't measure up. The counter arguments from other
people appear strong, and they have not been dealt with.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Pages:123456
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor