On 10/23/23 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <major snip>
>>
>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>
>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here in
>>> the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented to
>>> you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to you
>>> why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>> time!  :)
>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack" a
>> crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a mechanism
>> to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>
>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target no
>> one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as part
>> of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you want about
>> the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind. What's the
>> point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the irony involved
>> - repetition upon repetition.
>
> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
> and has been a full professor for decades.
>
> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
> of our shared view.
>

So what.

If you can't name him, he adds nothing to your arguement.

If you give his name, it likely adds very little, as the arguement is
still wrong, as not being able to make a program compute something does
not make the question "invalid". It would still be the fallacy of appeal
to authority.

My guess is that you are misinterpreting what he said, or what you said
to him (as you likely misused a term to mean something other than what
it actually meant to him.

Note, for you "summarized versions" is almost certainly your version
misinterpreting what was actually meant due to your numerous
deficiencies in understanding the terminology.

On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <major snip>
>>
>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>
>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here in
>>> the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented to
>>> you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to you
>>> why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>> time!  :)
>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack" a
>> crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a mechanism
>> to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>
>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target no
>> one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as part
>> of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you want about
>> the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind. What's the
>> point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the irony involved
>> - repetition upon repetition.
>
> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
> and has been a full professor for decades.
>
> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
> of our shared view.
>

*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/23 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <major snip>
>>>
>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>
>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented to
>>>> you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to you
>>>> why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>>> time!  :)
>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack"
>>> a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a mechanism
>>> to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>
>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you want
>>> about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind. What's
>>> the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the irony
>>> involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>
>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>
>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>> of our shared view.
>>
>
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>

Since you don't identify the person, you are just appealing to an
"athority" who doesn't actually have any demonstrated authority.

As far as we can tell, this "authority" is just your imaginary friend
who rides the Fairy Dust Powered Magical Unicorn.

Or, you could just again be misunderstanding what they are saying.

And, just because someone says something, doesn't make it true Until you
can show how a function, that is defined for all input values, is some
how "invalid", you are just showing your self to be a LIAR.

Remember, the problem is talking about asking *IF* it is possible to
create a machine that computes the "mathematical" Halting Function,
defined as:

Halting(M,d) returns true if M(d) will Halt in a finite number of steps,
and false if M(d) will never halt in any bounded number of steps.

Halting(D,D) is defined, since your H(D,D) returns false, so the defined
D(D) will halt, so Halting(D,D) is true, ad H is proved incorrect.

On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <major snip>
>>>
>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>
>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented to
>>>> you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to you
>>>> why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>>> time!  :)
>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack"
>>> a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a mechanism
>>> to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>
>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you want
>>> about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind. What's
>>> the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the irony
>>> involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>
>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>
>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>> of our shared view.
>>
>
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>

*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
How can this be misunderstood?
Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <major snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented
>>>>> to you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to
>>>>> you why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>>>> time!  :)
>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack"
>>>> a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>>>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>
>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>
>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>> of our shared view.
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>
>
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
> How can this be misunderstood?
> Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.
>

Computer science people can almost never think
outside-the-box of what they learned by rote.

*The Philosophy of Computability shows*

---
Of every H that can possibly be defined there is an
input D that makes the question:

"Does the Computation described by the input Halt?"
a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.

*The inability to correctly answer incorrect questions*
*does not place any real limit on anyone or anything*
---

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/23 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <major snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented
>>>>> to you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to
>>>>> you why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>>>> time!  :)
>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack"
>>>> a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>>>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>
>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>
>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>> of our shared view.
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>
>
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
> How can this be misunderstood?
> Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.
>

WHO agreed? apparently some anonymous person that you can't identify, so
their support doesn't mean anything.

And just because they said it, doesn't make it.

You are just using the fallacy of appeal to authority, but don't name
the authority, so you don't actuallly have anyone to appeal to.

This is just YOU claiming something to be true because you say it is.

That is one of the ultimate fallacies in logic.

You are just attempting a BIG LIE using disinformation while claiming to
be fighting disinformation.

It is simple to see you are wrong by the definitions, which has been
done, and you have failed to respond to those rebutals, which can be
assumed to mean that you don't HAVE a response, and accept the rebuttal
as valid, and your statements as being in error, even though you repeat
them.

You are just admitting you have nothing to base your lies on, other than
you can't stand the implications of the truth.

On 10/24/23 10:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you
>>>>>> are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what
>>>>>> you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a
>>>>> post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>> How can this be misunderstood?
>> Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.
>>
>
> Computer science people can almost never think
> outside-the-box of what they learned by rote.
>
> *The Philosophy of Computability shows*
>
> ---
> Of every H that can possibly be defined there is an
> input D that makes the question:
>
> "Does the Computation described by the input Halt?"
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
> *The inability to correctly answer incorrect questions*
> *does not place any real limit on anyone or anything*
> ---
>
>

But there IS a correct aswer to that question, for that particular input.

SO how can it be "self-contradictory"?

You are just proving your stupidity.

Maybe if you tried to use actual references, you might be able to figure
out what is actually true.

On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <major snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you are
>>>>> dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what you're
>>>>> talking about, and have no ability to process logical arguments or
>>>>> understand abstract concepts, regardless of how they're presented
>>>>> to you.  Many people (myself included) have carefully explained to
>>>>> you why you are incorrect, but it always turns out to be a waste of
>>>>> time!  :)
>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to "crack"
>>>> a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a post by
>>>> Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>
>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>
>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>> of our shared view.
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>
>
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
> How can this be misunderstood?

As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.

Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
degree of closure on even one single point.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you
>>>>>> are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what
>>>>>> you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a
>>>>> post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>> How can this be misunderstood?
>> Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.
>>
>
> Computer science people can almost never think
> outside-the-box of what they learned by rote.
>
> *The Philosophy of Computability shows*
>
> ---
> Of every H that can possibly be defined there is an
> input D that makes the question:
>
> "Does the Computation described by the input Halt?"
> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>
> *The inability to correctly answer incorrect questions*
> *does not place any real limit on anyone or anything*
> ---

*The halting problem is CORRECT*
In that the current definition of the problem is unsatisfiable.

*The halting problem is WRONG*
In that its unsatisfiability places any limit on computation.

This is a philosophy of computability thing that is
never referenced in any pure theory of computation papers.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/23 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not
>>>>>>> here in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" -
>>>>>>> you are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand
>>>>>>> what you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read
>>>>>> a post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts
>>>>>> are a mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a
>>>>>> target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can
>>>>>> see." as part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much
>>>>>> as you want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is
>>>>>> blind. What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to
>>>>>> notice the irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>> How can this be misunderstood?
>>> Mike misunderstood because Mike was not pay enough attention.
>>>
>>
>> Computer science people can almost never think
>> outside-the-box of what they learned by rote.
>>
>> *The Philosophy of Computability shows*
>>
>> ---
>> Of every H that can possibly be defined there is an
>> input D that makes the question:
>>
>> "Does the Computation described by the input Halt?"
>> a self-contradictory thus incorrect question.
>>
>> *The inability to correctly answer incorrect questions*
>> *does not place any real limit on anyone or anything*
>> ---
>
> *The halting problem is CORRECT*
> In that the current definition of the problem is unsatisfiable.

ILLOGICAL STATEMENT.

A FORMULA is satisfiable if there exists a combination of inputs that
makes the statement true, and is unsatisifiable if no such combination
exists.

THe Halting Problem doesn't have a "formula" that needs to be satisfied.

You are just committing a category error with that statement.

A Computation problem is called non-computable if there does not exist a
program that can give the answer, but that is still a valid question.

For a question to not be valid, there needs to not be a correct answer
for a GIVEN input.

>
> *The halting problem is WRONG*

No, YOU are wrong.

> In that its unsatisfiability places any limit on computation.

So, you think that all valid computation questons can be solved?

Why don't you then solve one of the great problems by creating the
program that solves it.

>
> This is a philosophy of computability thing that is
> never referenced in any pure theory of computation papers.
>

Because it is incorrect. And "Philosophy" doesn't have much use in a
formal system, we deal with facts, not opinions.

On 10/24/23 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you
>>>>>> are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what
>>>>>> you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a
>>>>> post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>> How can this be misunderstood?
>
> As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
> rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
>
> Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
> dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
> degree of closure on even one single point.
>
>

You HAVEN'T "proven" your point. You just make an unsubstatiated
INCORECT claim and use a fallacy to try to justify it.

YOUR Failure to answer the errors pointed out just shows that you have
no answer to them, and are acknowledging that you are incorrect.

On 10/24/2023 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here
>>>>>> in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you
>>>>>> are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what
>>>>>> you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a
>>>>> post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
>>>>> mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
>>>>> no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
>>>>> part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
>>>>> want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
>>>>> What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
>>>>> irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>
>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>
>>
>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>> How can this be misunderstood?
>
> As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
> rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
>
> Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
> dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
> degree of closure on even one single point.

In all of the cases where a computational problem cannot
be solved because it <is> isomorphic to a self-contradictory
question we reject the problem itself as incorrect.

In those cases where a computational problem cannot be solved
in finite time because it requires testing every element of
an infinite set the problem definition might not be construed
as incorrect.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/2023 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/24/23 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not
>>>>>>> here in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" -
>>>>>>> you are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand
>>>>>>> what you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read
>>>>>> a post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts
>>>>>> are a mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a
>>>>>> target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can
>>>>>> see." as part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much
>>>>>> as you want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is
>>>>>> blind. What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to
>>>>>> notice the irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>> How can this be misunderstood?
>>
>> As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
>> rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
>>
>> Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
>> dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
>> degree of closure on even one single point.
>>
>>
>
> You HAVEN'T "proven" your point. You just make an unsubstatiated
> INCORECT claim and use a fallacy to try to justify it.
>
> YOUR Failure to answer the errors pointed out just shows that you have
> no answer to them, and are acknowledging that you are incorrect.

I proved my point in that when
*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
This cannot be misconstrued as him saying that
*the halting problem is correct*

Mike made this mistake because he skimmed the words
as a basis for artificially contriving a fake rebuttal.

Mike was not intentionally dishonest his mistake is
more accurately characterized as negligence.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 10/24/23 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not
>>>>>>> here in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" -
>>>>>>> you are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand
>>>>>>> what you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
>>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
>>>>>>> they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included) have
>>>>>>> carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
>>>>>>> turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read
>>>>>> a post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts
>>>>>> are a mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a
>>>>>> target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can
>>>>>> see." as part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much
>>>>>> as you want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is
>>>>>> blind. What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to
>>>>>> notice the irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>
>>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>> How can this be misunderstood?
>>
>> As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
>> rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
>>
>> Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
>> dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
>> degree of closure on even one single point.
>
> In all of the cases where a computational problem cannot
> be solved because it <is> isomorphic to a self-contradictory
> question we reject the problem itself as incorrect.

Nope. Show the actual "isomorphism"

The problem is that the actual question has an actual correct answer, so
it can't be "contradictory" (self or otherwise).

You just don't know what the words you are using actually mean.

>
> In those cases where a computational problem cannot be solved
> in finite time because it requires testing every element of
> an infinite set the problem definition might not be construed
> as incorrect.
>

Maybe it would be helpful to know WHAT this is in reply to.

Note, by your admission, it seems you are admitting that if the problem
CAN be solved with infinite time, then it is ok,

But IF H is allowed to process of infinite (unbounded) time, then it
would be ok for it, after that infinite time, to answer non-halting, as
then the the "pathological" input IS non-halting, as it ran for
unbounded time, and thus IS "non-halting" by the definition.

It just means that H itself failed, as the requirement is to give the
answer in finite time, so your criteria just shows that it is solvable
in unbound time, just not bounded time, so the problem is correct, but
uncomputable.

On 10/24/23 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/24/23 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <major snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It provides significant evidence that I am not simply
>>>>>>>>> a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not
>>>>>>>> here in the thread.  Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" -
>>>>>>>> you are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand
>>>>>>>> what you're talking about, and have no ability to process
>>>>>>>> logical arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of
>>>>>>>> how they're presented to you.  Many people (myself included)
>>>>>>>> have carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it
>>>>>>>> always turns out to be a waste of time!  :)
>>>>>>> So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try to
>>>>>>> "crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read
>>>>>>> a post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts
>>>>>>> are a mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a
>>>>>>> target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can
>>>>>>> see." as part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as
>>>>>>> much as you want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and
>>>>>>> 2) is blind. What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware
>>>>>>> to notice the irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
>>>>>> computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
>>>>>> proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
>>>>>> times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
>>>>>> and has been a full professor for decades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
>>>>>> of our shared view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
>>>> How can this be misunderstood?
>>>
>>> As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
>>> rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
>>>
>>> Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
>>> dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
>>> degree of closure on even one single point.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You HAVEN'T "proven" your point. You just make an unsubstatiated
>> INCORECT claim and use a fallacy to try to justify it.
>>
>> YOUR Failure to answer the errors pointed out just shows that you have
>> no answer to them, and are acknowledging that you are incorrect.
>
> I proved my point in that when
> *He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
> This cannot be misconstrued as him saying that
> *the halting problem is correct*

Nope, just shows you don't know what it means to PROVE something.

You can't prove something by just quoting that someone thinks it is correct.

That is just the fallacy of appeal to authority.

>
> Mike made this mistake because he skimmed the words
> as a basis for artificially contriving a fake rebuttal.
>
> Mike was not intentionally dishonest his mistake is
> more accurately characterized as negligence.
>

No, YOU are not intelegent enough to see that you have made a fool of
yourself.