To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
the exact same ideas over and over without success.

I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.

I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
ideas until I hit one that works.

The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
problem and start from complete scratch.

First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
“reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/

The Science of Genius
Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
shared attributes and a common process of discovery
BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/

According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
variation and selective retention (BVSR).

In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
underpinnings of the process he described.

As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
domains.

The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
idea.

Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.

Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
originally cast aside.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2024-03-03 15:40:27 +0000, olcott said:

> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>
> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>
> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
> ideas until I hit one that works.
>
> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
> problem and start from complete scratch.
>
> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>
> The Science of Genius
> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>
> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>
> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
> underpinnings of the process he described.
>
> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
> domains.
>
> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
> idea.
>
> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>
> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
> originally cast aside.

Right now your work seems to be in phase were a long backtracking is
required. Of course you may need a long time and a lot of work
before you can see that you need to backtrack more than to where you
are now.

--
Mikko

On 3/3/2024 11:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-03-03 15:40:27 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>
>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>
>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>
>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>
>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>
>> The Science of Genius
>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>
>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>
>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>
>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
>> domains.
>>
>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
>> idea.
>>
>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>
>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>> originally cast aside.
>
> Right now your work seems to be in phase were a long backtracking is
> required. Of course you may need a long time and a lot of work
> before you can see that you need to backtrack more than to where you
> are now.
>

It only seems that way on the basis of your limited
understanding of what I am saying. I am actually
wrapping up my work, thanks in part to Mike.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>
> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>
> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
> ideas until I hit one that works.
>
> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
> problem and start from complete scratch.
>
> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>
> The Science of Genius
> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>
> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>
> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
> underpinnings of the process he described.
>
> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
> domains.
>
> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
> idea.
>
> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>
> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
> originally cast aside.
>

But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the problems
actually are.

YOU DON'T.

You have proven this by your words, and out right admitted it in a
number of occasions.

None of this camn be applied if you don't understand the rules of the game.

If you DO apply this, and change fundamentals to the systems of the
problems, then you have put yourself into DIFFERENT systems, and thus
your results do not apply to the original system.

This might be your case, but you just show yourself to be a pathological
lair by insisting that the results DO apply, even though you are
ignoring the basic rules of the system.

SO, as far as I can tell, you are just spinning in dark cirles not
knowing where you are, having convinced yourself you are somewhere you
are not, because you just ignore the actual rules.

On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>
>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>
>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>
>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>
>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>
>> The Science of Genius
>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>
>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>
>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>
>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
>> domains.
>>
>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
>> idea.
>>
>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>
>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>> originally cast aside.
>>
>
> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the problems
> actually are.

Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
implementation of the design of HH.

Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
objections. The key design validation is that the outer
HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
machine.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>
>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>
>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>
>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>
>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down complicated
>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>
>>> The Science of Genius
>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>
>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>
>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before hitting on
>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a blind
>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>
>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in all
>>> domains.
>>>
>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in trial-
>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
>>> idea.
>>>
>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>
>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity and
>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>> originally cast aside.
>>>
>>
>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the problems
>> actually are.
>
> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
> implementation of the design of HH.
>
> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
> machine.
>

And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation it
is doing.

Thus, if the code from the outer simulation decides to wait for an
answer, so will the next one in, and the one after that, and so on, and
nobody every decided to abort its simulation to return an answer, and HH
just doesn't answer.

The outer HH can never simulate its input to the point where it makes
its decision, as its simulation will always be "behind" the execution
state of the simulator doing the simulation.

This has been explained before, and even a point YOU have made (trying
to justify why it was ok to abort), but it just means that the outer HH
MUST (to give an answer) abort its simulation before it can see the
decision the machine it is simulating will do.

TO do other wise means finding an N such that N+1 < N, which doesn't exist.

On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>
>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>
>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>
>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>
>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes called
>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>> complicated
>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>
>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>
>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald Campbell,
>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed blind
>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>
>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>> hitting on
>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a
>>>> blind
>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>
>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius in
>>>> all
>>>> domains.
>>>>
>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>> trial-
>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
>>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a variety of
>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>
>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an earlier
>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction. Superfluity
>>>> and
>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the problems
>>> actually are.
>>
>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>
>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>> machine.
>>
>
>
> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation it
> is doing.
>

The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
*I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>
>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>
>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>
>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>> called
>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>> complicated
>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>
>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>
>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed
>>>>> blind
>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>> hitting on
>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a
>>>>> blind
>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a mixture of
>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25 years
>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius
>>>>> in all
>>>>> domains.
>>>>>
>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>>> trial-
>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth of an
>>>>> idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>> variety of
>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>> problems actually are.
>>>
>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>
>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>> machine.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation it
>> is doing.
>>
>
> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>

Nope.

The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH in getting to the
point where it needs to make its decision.

This is what your traces show. The outer H / HH aborts its simulation if
the next HH in before that HH gets to the same point in its simultion.

Thus the outer HH needs to make its decision without seeing the next one
in's decision.

ALL the HH's will see EXACTLY the same amount of data when they get to
the decision point in the actual execution of the machine they are in
when it actually gets executed, and the simulation of all of them gets
aborted before that point, so the machine simulating them never gets to
see that decision, so all the machines need to make the same mistake.

On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed
>>>>>> blind
>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a
>>>>>> blind
>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius
>>>>>> in all
>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>>>> trial-
>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth
>>>>>> of an
>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>
>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>
>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>> machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
>>> it is doing.
>>>
>>
>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH

*Yes it does here is how*
HH digs into the internal state of its simulated machine as Mike
said that HH could do.

The outer HH simulates DD that calls another instance of HH that
is also simulated by this outer HH.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/3/24 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed
>>>>>>> blind
>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as
>>>>>>> a blind
>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25
>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius
>>>>>>> in all
>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>>>>> trial-
>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth
>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>> machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
>>>> it is doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH
>
> *Yes it does here is how*
> HH digs into the internal state of its simulated machine as Mike
> said that HH could do.
>
> The outer HH simulates DD that calls another instance of HH that
> is also simulated by this outer HH.
>
>

Note, you LIE by improperly editing the quotation, INTENTIONALLY the way
it was done.

I said:

The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
*I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*

So, you edited out the qualification of what I was saying.

Thus, you are just showing how deceitful you are.

On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to reverse-engineer
>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>> called
>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the ground
>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed
>>>>>> blind
>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as a
>>>>>> blind
>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25
>>>>>> years
>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius
>>>>>> in all
>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>>>> trial-
>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth
>>>>>> of an
>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>
>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>
>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>> machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
>>> it is doing.
>>>
>>
>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>
>
> Nope.
>

*I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*

> The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH in getting to the
> point where it needs to make its decision.
>

That was confusing so I initially simplified it.
The outermost HH is the first one that sees its own
halt status criteria has been met.

It is the first one because it sees the longest
execution trace.

It derives this combined execution trace by combining
its own execution trace of DD with the execution trace
of DD produced by its inner HH.

The inner HH cannot do this to see the outer HH data.

> This is what your traces show. The outer H / HH aborts its simulation if
> the next HH in before that HH gets to the same point in its simultion.

At that point it would invoke another inner HH, thus the outer HH
has its abort simulation criteria.

> Thus the outer HH needs to make its decision without seeing the next one
> in's decision.
>

It has already seen a completely repeated state.

> ALL the HH's will see EXACTLY the same amount of data when they get to
> the decision point in the actual execution of the machine they are in

No this is factually incorrect.
First of all there is only one outer HH and one inner HH.
The outer HH grabs simulated lines of DD from the inner one.

The inner HH has one execution trace less data than the
outer one when they both get to the call "HH" point in D.

> when it actually gets executed, and the simulation of all of them gets
> aborted before that point, so the machine simulating them never gets to
> see that decision, so all the machines need to make the same mistake.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he termed
>>>>>>> blind
>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as
>>>>>>> a blind
>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25
>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative genius
>>>>>>> in all
>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage in
>>>>>>> trial-
>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth
>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>> machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
>>>> it is doing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>
> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>

And have been WRONG every time.

It is like saying you have a N that solves N+1 < N.

The outer HH sees LESS of the inner machine AT THE POINT IT MAKES ITS
DECISION, then the inner machine will do when it makes its decisiom.

>> The outer HH doesn't see the trace of the next HH in getting to the
>> point where it needs to make its decision.
>>
>
> That was confusing so I initially simplified it.
> The outermost HH is the first one that sees its own
> halt status criteria has been met.
>
> It is the first one because it sees the longest
> execution trace.

ONLY in the simulation.

In REALITY, they will all see the exact same information when they make
there decisions.

You just confuse fantasy for reality.

>
> It derives this combined execution trace by combining
> its own execution trace of DD with the execution trace
> of DD produced by its inner HH.
>
> The inner HH cannot do this to see the outer HH data.

But it sees the exact same data from the next inner HH.

>
>> This is what your traces show. The outer H / HH aborts its simulation
>> if the next HH in before that HH gets to the same point in its simultion.
>
> At that point it would invoke another inner HH, thus the outer HH
> has its abort simulation criteria.
>

So? We are talking about the behavior of tha ACTUAL EXECUTION, not the
aborted simulation of it.

You confuse your fantasy for the Reality.

>> Thus the outer HH needs to make its decision without seeing the next
>> one in's decision.
>>
>
> It has already seen a completely repeated state.

Right, and so will the actual execution of the next one in.

YOu lie to yourself by confusing your fantasy with reality,

>
>> ALL the HH's will see EXACTLY the same amount of data when they get to
>> the decision point in the actual execution of the machine they are in
>
> No this is factually incorrect.
> First of all there is only one outer HH and one inner HH.
> The outer HH grabs simulated lines of DD from the inner one.

No, there are an infinite chains if inner HHs

>
> The inner HH has one execution trace less data than the
> outer one when they both get to the call "HH" point in D.

Only in your fantasy where it gets aborted.

In reality it runs to the point it makes its decision.

You are lying to yourself about what the problem is about.

It is about the REALITY of the ACTUAL EXECUTION of the input, not the
fantasy of the aborted simulation.

>
>> when it actually gets executed, and the simulation of all of them gets
>> aborted before that point, so the machine simulating them never gets
>> to see that decision, so all the machines need to make the same mistake.
>
>

On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility. Sometimes
>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts as
>>>>>>>> a blind
>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past 25
>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage
>>>>>>>> in trial-
>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the worth
>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative episode.
>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had been
>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the simulation
>>>>> it is doing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>
>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>
>
> And have been WRONG every time.
>

It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
It may have never actually been a case of lying.

Some things that are trivial for me may be next to
impossibly difficult for others that have not gone
over these same ideas again and again thousands of times.

To prove my point that you just disagreed with you only
have to see that the second execution trace of the input to
HH(DD,DD) comes AFTER the first one.

That you somehow believe that these two different execution
traces occur simultaneously when it is proven that they
occur sequentially seems pretty dumb to me.

int DD(int (*x)())
{ int Halt_Status = HH(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{ Output("Input_Halts = ", HH(DD,DD));
}

machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55 push ebp ; begin main()
[00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001d25][00102fc5][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22 ; push DD
[00001d2a][00102fc1][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22 ; push DD
[00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e80ef6ffff call 00001342 ; call HH
New slave_stack at:10306d

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:113075
[00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55 push ebp ; begin DD
[00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51 push ecx
[00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH
New slave_stack at:14da95
[00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55 push ebp ; begin DD
[00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51 push ecx
[00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50 push eax ; push DD
[00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51 push ecx ; push DD
[00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH
Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped return 0 to main()

On 3/4/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility.
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts
>>>>>>>>> as a blind
>>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer simulations,
>>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past
>>>>>>>>> 25 years
>>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced without
>>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage
>>>>>>>>> in trial-
>>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the
>>>>>>>>> worth of an
>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to an
>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative
>>>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the
>>>>>> simulation it is doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>
>>
>> And have been WRONG every time.
>>
>
> It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
> The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
> that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
> It may have never actually been a case of lying.

Nope.

EMOERICAL FACT:

When H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is not a Halt Decider,

>
> Some things that are trivial for me may be next to
> impossibly difficult for others that have not gone
> over these same ideas again and again thousands of times.

Nope, they seem trivial to you as you don't actually implement them by
the rules.

You just lie to yourself, and then lie to the world.

>
> To prove my point that you just disagreed with you only
> have to see that the second execution trace of the input to
> HH(DD,DD) comes AFTER the first one.

After in time seen by the simuator, but still Reach by the actual
execution of the simulated machine, which is what count.

>
> That you somehow believe that these two different execution
> traces occur simultaneously when it is proven that they
> occur sequentially seems pretty dumb to
Right, the SIMULATING machine sees less detail of the simulated machine
at the point when it makes its decision then the actual execution of the
simulated machine will have when it needs to make its decision, which
will be some point after the simulator has stopped looking because it
has aborted its simulation.

You seem to think that the actual execution of the machine being
simulated stops when the simuator stops its simulation.

That is just putting fantasy above reality.

Reality is the ACTUAL EXECUTION of the machine being simulate.

The simulation is just the "pretend" part.

>
> int DD(int (*x)())
> {
>   int Halt_Status = HH(x, x);
>   if (Halt_Status)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
>   return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>   Output("Input_Halts = ", HH(DD,DD));
> }
>
>
>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>  address   address   data      code       language
>  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55         push ebp        ; begin main()
> [00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001d25][00102fc5][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
> [00001d2a][00102fc1][00001c22] 68221c0000 push 00001c22   ; push DD
> [00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e80ef6ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
> New slave_stack at:10306d
>
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
> [00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
> [00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
> [00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
> [00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
> [00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
> New slave_stack at:14da95
> [00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
> [00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
> [00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax        ; push DD
> [00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx        ; push DD
> [00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
> Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped return 0 to main()
>

On 3/4/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/4/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility.
>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from the
>>>>>>>>>> ground
>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts
>>>>>>>>>> as a blind
>>>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer
>>>>>>>>>> simulations,
>>>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past
>>>>>>>>>> 25 years
>>>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must engage
>>>>>>>>>> in trial-
>>>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the
>>>>>>>>>> worth of an
>>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to
>>>>>>>>>> an earlier
>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative
>>>>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that had
>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the
>>>>>>> simulation it is doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>
>>>
>>> And have been WRONG every time.
>>>
>>
>> It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
>> The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
>> that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
>> It may have never actually been a case of lying.
>
> Nope.
>
>
> EMOERICAL FACT:
>
> When H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is not a Halt Decider,

That is not what I am claiming about HH. I am claiming that it
correctly proved that it must abort its simulation.

>>
>> Some things that are trivial for me may be next to
>> impossibly difficult for others that have not gone
>> over these same ideas again and again thousands of times.
>
> Nope, they seem trivial to you as you don't actually implement them by
> the rules.
>
> You just lie to yourself, and then lie to the world.

*I am correcting the foundations of computability*

>>
>> To prove my point that you just disagreed with you only
>> have to see that the second execution trace of the input to
>> HH(DD,DD) comes AFTER the first one.
>
> After in time seen by the simuator, but still Reach by the actual
> execution of the simulated machine, which is what count.
>

I am claiming that HH correctly proved that it must
abort its simulation.

On 3/5/24 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/4/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist Donald
>>>>>>>>>>> Campbell,
>>>>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail before
>>>>>>>>>>> hitting on
>>>>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what counts
>>>>>>>>>>> as a blind
>>>>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer
>>>>>>>>>>> simulations,
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the past
>>>>>>>>>>> 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must
>>>>>>>>>>> engage in trial-
>>>>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>> worth of an
>>>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to
>>>>>>>>>>> an earlier
>>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative
>>>>>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that
>>>>>>>>>>> had been
>>>>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the
>>>>>>>> simulation it is doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And have been WRONG every time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
>>> The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
>>> that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
>>> It may have never actually been a case of lying.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>
>> EMOERICAL FACT:
>>
>> When H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is not a Halt Decider,
>
> That is not what I am claiming about HH. I am claiming that it
> correctly proved that it must abort its simulation.

So you are admitting to lying about working on the Halting Problem,
which is about if a input describes a machine that Halts.

You are just admitting that you have just been a stupid liar.

>
>>>
>>> Some things that are trivial for me may be next to
>>> impossibly difficult for others that have not gone
>>> over these same ideas again and again thousands of times.
>>
>> Nope, they seem trivial to you as you don't actually implement them by
>> the rules.
>>
>> You just lie to yourself, and then lie to the world.
>
> *I am correcting the foundations of computability*

On 3/5/2024 5:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/5/24 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/4/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break down
>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist
>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Campbell,
>>>>>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail
>>>>>>>>>>>> before hitting on
>>>>>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what
>>>>>>>>>>>> counts as a blind
>>>>>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations,
>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the
>>>>>>>>>>>> past 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must
>>>>>>>>>>>> engage in trial-
>>>>>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>> worth of an
>>>>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking: superfluity
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates a
>>>>>>>>>>>> variety of
>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return to
>>>>>>>>>>>> an earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative
>>>>>>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that
>>>>>>>>>>>> had been
>>>>>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the
>>>>>>>>> simulation it is doing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>>>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And have been WRONG every time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
>>>> The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
>>>> that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
>>>> It may have never actually been a case of lying.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>
>>> EMOERICAL FACT:
>>>
>>> When H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is not a Halt Decider,
>>
>> That is not what I am claiming about HH. I am claiming that it
>> correctly proved that it must abort its simulation.
>
> So you are admitting to lying about working on the Halting Problem,
> which is about if a input describes a machine that Halts.
>

On 3/5/24 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/5/2024 5:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/5/24 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 7:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2024 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To outside reviewers that are paying less than complete
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention my work seems circular that I am simply repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the exact same ideas over and over without success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this article 12 years ago and was pleased to find
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the (BVSR) process outlined below is my exact process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I keep trying slightly different variations of the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas until I hit one that works.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other aspect of creative process is Reasoning from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First Principles. This process makes sure to utterly ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of the assumptions that anyone else has ever made about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem and start from complete scratch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems and unleash creative possibility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “reasoning from first principles,” the idea is to break
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down complicated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems into basic elements and then reassemble them from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ground
>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. https://fs.blog/first-principles/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Science of Genius
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Outstanding creativity in all domains may stem from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared attributes and a common process of discovery
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BY DEAN KEITH SIMONTON
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-genius/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to a theory proposed in 1960 by psychologist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donald Campbell,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative thought emerges through a process or procedure he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> termed blind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation and selective retention (BVSR).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In short, a creator must try out ideas that might fail
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before hitting on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a breakthrough. Campbell did not precisely define what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> counts as a blind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation, nor did he discuss in any detail the psychological
>>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings of the process he described.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a result, his ideas were left open to criticism. Using a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mixture of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> historical analyses, laboratory experiments, computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical models and case studies, I have devoted the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> past 25 years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to developing BVSR into a comprehensive theory of creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> genius in all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> domains.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The blindness of BVSR merely means that ideas are produced
>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>> foresight into their eventual utility. The creator must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engage in trial-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and-error or generate-and-test procedures to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> worth of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two common phenomena characterize BVSR thinking:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking. Superfluity means that the creator generates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas, one or more of which turn out to be useless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Backtracking signifies that the creator must often return
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach after blindly going off in the wrong direction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Superfluity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> backtracking are often found together in the same creative
>>>>>>>>>>>>> episode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exploring the wrong track obliges a return to options that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> had been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> originally cast aside.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But to do any of this, you need to first understand what the
>>>>>>>>>>>> problems actually are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike validated the design intent although not the physical
>>>>>>>>>>> implementation of the design of HH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Late last night I reverse-engineered how I could use his
>>>>>>>>>>> suggestion of how HH could be implemented to address his
>>>>>>>>>>> objections. The key design validation is that the outer
>>>>>>>>>>> HH can see all of the internal workings of its simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the next one in sees exactly the same thing from the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation it is doing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The outermost HH has a whole execution trace more than the next
>>>>>>>>> inner one thus meets its abort criteria sooner.
>>>>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I have told you this 500 times now over the last two years*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And have been WRONG every time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is an empirically verified fact that I am correct.
>>>>> The reason that I have called people liars in the past is
>>>>> that they disagree with empirically verified facts.
>>>>> It may have never actually been a case of lying.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> EMOERICAL FACT:
>>>>
>>>> When H(D,D) returns 0, then D(D) Halts, so H(D,D) is not a Halt
>>>> Decider,
>>>
>>> That is not what I am claiming about HH. I am claiming that it
>>> correctly proved that it must abort its simulation.
>>
>> So you are admitting to lying about working on the Halting Problem,
>> which is about if a input describes a machine that Halts.
>>
>
> *Criterion Measure*
> H is assumed to be a simulating termination analyzer that aborts the
> simulation of any input that would cause its own non-termination and
> returns NO. Otherwise H always returns YES.
>
> This provides a basis for a correct halt decider to
> correct decide halting and it provides the basis for
> a contradicted halt decider to do something.