On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until
>>>>>>>> they determine that this simulated input would never reach its
>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>
>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>
>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't follow
>>> from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>
>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a piece
>>> of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are aware of
>>> the fact that the input happens to be a representation of Ĥ, a
>>> machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>
>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this information.
>>>
>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string includes
>>> a copy of itself?
>>>
>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us even
>>>>> left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how that
>>>>> algorithm works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>
>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you won't
>>> provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask about above.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders is
>> that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>
> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.

In this case it does. You did not pay perfect attention to the exact
words that I used.

>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure simulation
>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus infinite
>> behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved then a
>> transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>
>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten with
>> the halting problem.
>>
>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H it is
>> reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>
> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what is
> possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has knowledge
> which the Turing Machine does not.
>

I have a computer program that can do this too, yet it is simply ruled
as not counting on the basis that it does not conform to the limitations
of computable functions.

> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its input
> string is a representation of itself?

A RASP machine simply sees that its input is at its same machine address.

> Unless it has some way of doing
> that, it has no way of recognizing that it is being called recursively.
>
> André
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine

If a RASP machine is strictly more powerful than a Turing machine then
simply abandon the TM model as inherently inferior.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

Please give Ukraine immediate NATO membership.

Then immediately send in the NATO troops to fight the Russian Army.

Forget about Putin's nuclear war threat, forget about it because he will press the nuclear war button regardless if NATO does or does not intervene.

This is the same situation as the crazy insane Hitler taking the Sudetenland 1938.

Putin will use the nuclear button no matter what.

So it is better to fight now and match his threat than for him to press the nuclear at his leisure and surprise.

Bullies of the world are never appeased, but directly fought, blow for blow, otherwise you give them the upperhand.

AP

2"Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth" -- poem ballad by James Kibo Parry Moron of Rensselaer Polytech and Wired magazine.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Who was Putins Doktor Faust?
> Putin: Hypersonic Avangard Changes Everything!

Amazing, for what your corrupt fake money government, and the lying TV and
mainstream media, is making you endure a war, hunger, lack of heat and
oil, and even a nuclear war. Wake up, you fucking stupid.

Zelensky Actor_Dancer - At least Reagan Just Appeared With a Monkey
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cKx0h5uejQHb/

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Who was Putins Doktor Faust?
>
> Putin: Hypersonic Avangard Changes Everything!

A wanker khazar, as president, and a MMA fighter as the mayor of the
capital. In a deepen corrupt nazi country with a GDP on citizen 4 times
lower than the poorest in UE, wanting be a nuclear army force. You
mathematicians are crazy.

Zelensky Actor_Dancer - At least Reagan Just Appeared With a Monkey
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cKx0h5uejQHb/

On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 11:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't
>>>>> follow from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a piece
>>>>> of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are aware
>>>>> of the fact that the input happens to be a representation of Ĥ, a
>>>>> machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this
>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string
>>>>> includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us
>>>>>>> even left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how
>>>>>>> that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you won't
>>>>> provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask about above.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders is
>>>> that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>>>
>>> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.
>>
>> In this case it does. You did not pay perfect attention to the exact
>> words that I used.
>>
>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure
>>>> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus
>>>> infinite behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved
>>>> then a transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>>>
>>>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten with
>>>> the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H it
>>>> is reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>>>
>>> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what
>>> is possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has
>>> knowledge which the Turing Machine does not.
>>>
>>
>> I have a computer program that can do this too, yet it is simply ruled
>> as not counting on the basis that it does not conform to the
>> limitations of computable functions.
>>
>>> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its
>>> input string is a representation of itself?
>>
>> A RASP machine simply sees that its input is at its same machine address.
>>
>>> Unless it has some way of doing that, it has no way of recognizing
>>> that it is being called recursively.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
>>
>> If a RASP machine is strictly more powerful than a Turing machine then
>> simply abandon the TM model as inherently inferior.
>
> You are horridly confused here.
>
> RASP machines or x86 machines are *not* more powerful than Turing Machines.
>
> Anything your computer can do is a computation. But it doesn't follow
> from that that any arbitrary C function or piece of x86 code is a
> computation, because a computation involves a *self-contained* algorithm.
>
> Thus, unless a C function or piece of x86 code can run *on its own*, it
> is not a computation. If it depends on other functions (including
> Operating System functions) then the *combination* of that function and
> all of the other functions it depends on can be construed as a
> computation, but the function on its own cannot be (and your computer
> wouldn't be able to run it in absence of those dependencies).
>

Ah so a C function that has its own machine address directly encoded
into one of its x86 instructions is still a computation. This would be
the machine address of a label ---> __asm lea eax, HERE

> The problem with all of your solutions to the halting problem isn't that
> they aren't computations, but that they are the *wrong* computation.
>

So you assume by simply ignoring the self-evident truth of this statement:
It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider must
abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite simulation of
this input that thus input specifies an infinite sequence of
configurations.

> The input to a computation consists of *all* of the information which is
> made available to that computation, not just those bits of information
> which are passed as formal parameters to a C function.
>
> Given some C function defined as
>

My C/x86 H merely needs to know its own machine address, then it can
tell that as soon as P calls H with identical parameters that this is
infinitely nested simulation.

> Boolean foo(someType *X) {...}
>
> This function does not necessarily compute a function from X to a
> boolean value because a C function can in principle access all sorts of
> other data besides its formal parameter X. *Any* data which the function
> makes use of must be considered part of its input even if it isn't
> declared as a formal parameter.
>
> If a function refers to both some data in memory and the address of that
> data, those are two *separate* pieces of information, and when such a
> function is construed as a computation, both of those pieces of
> information must be treated as part of its input.
>
> The halting problem specifies exactly which information the input to a
> halt decider includes, and if a C function makes use of any data other
> than that information then the function may be a computation, but it is
> *not* the computation that the halting problem is concerned with.

On 3/1/2022 5:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 13:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 11:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible
>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't
>>>>>>> follow from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a
>>>>>>> piece of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are
>>>>>>> aware of the fact that the input happens to be a representation
>>>>>>> of Ĥ, a machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this
>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string
>>>>>>> includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us
>>>>>>>>> even left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to
>>>>>>>>> recognize infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually
>>>>>>>>> show how that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible
>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you
>>>>>>> won't provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask
>>>>>>> about above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders
>>>>>> is that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.
>>>>
>>>> In this case it does. You did not pay perfect attention to the exact
>>>> words that I used.
>>>>
>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure
>>>>>> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus
>>>>>> infinite behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved
>>>>>> then a transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten
>>>>>> with the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>> it is reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what
>>>>> is possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has
>>>>> knowledge which the Turing Machine does not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a computer program that can do this too, yet it is simply
>>>> ruled as not counting on the basis that it does not conform to the
>>>> limitations of computable functions.
>>>>
>>>>> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its
>>>>> input string is a representation of itself?
>>>>
>>>> A RASP machine simply sees that its input is at its same machine
>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless it has some way of doing that, it has no way of recognizing
>>>>> that it is being called recursively.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
>>>>
>>>> If a RASP machine is strictly more powerful than a Turing machine
>>>> then simply abandon the TM model as inherently inferior.
>>>
>>> You are horridly confused here.
>>>
>>> RASP machines or x86 machines are *not* more powerful than Turing
>>> Machines.
>>>
>>> Anything your computer can do is a computation. But it doesn't follow
>>> from that that any arbitrary C function or piece of x86 code is a
>>> computation, because a computation involves a *self-contained*
>>> algorithm.
>>>
>>> Thus, unless a C function or piece of x86 code can run *on its own*,
>>> it is not a computation. If it depends on other functions (including
>>> Operating System functions) then the *combination* of that function
>>> and all of the other functions it depends on can be construed as a
>>> computation, but the function on its own cannot be (and your computer
>>> wouldn't be able to run it in absence of those dependencies).
>>>
>>
>> Ah so a C function that has its own machine address directly encoded
>> into one of its x86 instructions is still a computation. This would be
>> the machine address of a label ---> __asm lea eax, HERE
>
> Sure, but it's a computation that has that address as part of its
> *input*. That means you're not dealing with the same computation as the
> halting problem.
>
> Again, when dealing with computations, 'input' doesn't just mean things
> which are passed to a function as formal parameters; it means *any* data
> which the function has access to and makes use of.
>
>>> The problem with all of your solutions to the halting problem isn't
>>> that they aren't computations, but that they are the *wrong*
>>> computation.
>>>
>>
>> So you assume by simply ignoring the self-evident truth of this
>> statement:
>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>>
>>> The input to a computation consists of *all* of the information which
>>> is made available to that computation, not just those bits of
>>> information which are passed as formal parameters to a C function.
>>>
>>> Given some C function defined as
>>>
>>
>> My C/x86 H merely needs to know its own machine address, then it can
>> tell that as soon as P calls H with identical parameters that this is
>> infinitely nested simulation.
>>
>>> Boolean foo(someType *X) {...}
>>>
>>> This function does not necessarily compute a function from X to a
>>> boolean value because a C function can in principle access all sorts
>>> of other data besides its formal parameter X. *Any* data which the
>>> function makes use of must be considered part of its input even if it
>>> isn't declared as a formal parameter.
>>>
>>> If a function refers to both some data in memory and the address of
>>> that data, those are two *separate* pieces of information, and when
>>> such a function is construed as a computation, both of those pieces
>>> of information must be treated as part of its input.
>>>
>>> The halting problem specifies exactly which information the input to
>>> a halt decider includes, and if a C function makes use of any data
>>> other than that information then the function may be a computation,
>>> but it is *not* the computation that the halting problem is concerned
>>> with.
>>
>> That seems like an arbitrary constraint.
>
> There's nothing arbitrary about it. When we ask whether W is computable
> from X and Y, and a program makes use of X, Y, and Z to calculate W then
> it isn't addressing the question being asked; it's addressing whether W
> is computable from X, Y, and Z, which is an entirely different question.
>

"Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth" -- poem ballad by James Kibo Parry Moron of Rensselaer Polytech and Wired magazine.

Kibo Parry Moron, is this poem ballad of yours take after the Homeric "ILLIAD" or is it more of a Twilight Zone ballad.

What was that movie called??? Lonely in Seattle???? For Jeff Relf it needs a new title-- Intensely Insane in Seattle.

Kibo Parry recites Poem ballad "Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth"

Just hours after Kibo Parry Moron gets inducted into the CIA, he blows his cover (I guess the insanity of stalking for Kibo is so overpowering that he cannot help himself and wants to join the Portugal-- forgiv me, i sick i cry---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "spamtard"
>"barking fuckdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> General Nakasone a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails
> math.
>cannot understand the slant cut in single
> cone is an Oval, always the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic he
> believes of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither
>can do a geometry proof
> Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

1
Kill Putin, before he kills our planet Earth

Humanity needs to colonize Europa-- not engulfed in nuclear war

Putin that petty dictator megalomaniac whore

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a shit

A shit in France's woods run through with a sword bit

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a piss

A piss on the plains of Turkey dismounting his horse

Does it really matter how the megalomaniac is dissed

Sun shines from Faraday law, not from fusion

That goonclod physicist professors confusion

It shines from Faraday law you mindless shit for brains

Kill Putin with stinger missile on a boat, car, train or plane

Xi has another Winter Olympic competition, fly in Putin on a plane

But before landing blow it to smithereens from the slalom train

The Chinese Communist Party was watching from the curling rink

Saying, good riddance to you Putin you mindless dink

And blame it on a engine failure, not made-in-China, but NK stink

The Sun gone Red Giant, needs humanity to colonize Europa

Not look at the idiot Putin or Xi navel belly button and scrota

2

Kibo kill Putin stink at NSA Winter Olympics toboggan run

Yes, kibo Parry Moron ordered by General Nakasone says Sun

Sun gone Red Giant phase while fool Putin wants Ukraine

Fool Xi with Chinese Communist Party wants Taiwan

Fool Kim of North Korea wants rockets to reach Sea of Japan

While the world needs rockets to reach Io, Europa and Ganymede

Kibo Parry eats a kilometer of Trump shit just to see where it comes from

Trump eats a kilometer of shit of Putin just to see where it comes from

Putin eats a kilometer of shit by Xi just to see where it comes from

Xi eats a kilometer of shit of Kibo, just to see where it comes from

Andrew Wiles proves that Terence Tao in Fermat Last Theorem prom

The ice skating Olympic gold medal is not given to Russian GazProm

Too many falls on the ice with the overdrugged skaters, drunk on vodka

When what is truly needed is a colony on Callisto, Io, Ganymede and Europa

3

Sun gone Red Giant Initiation phase, while idiots chase after Ukraine, Taiwan

Kibo Parry cut out Putin's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moroney cut out Xi's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moron eat a kilometer of Trump's shit just to see where it came from

Mama sang bass, Xi sang tenor, Putin joined Communist Party in a

When humanity needed to colonize Mars, Io, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa

How did you do it Kibo Parry Moron, a James Bond poisoned dagger walking cane

Or was it the stinger missile aimed at Putin brain

Or was it a Livia Caesar, poisoned chocolate bar

Or was it the traditional Texas housewife method of running over in the car

Or was it the Putin textbook method of polonium in the tea

Or was it the expeditious Xi method of blowing up his plane on the China Sea

Pray tell, Kibo, which was it, Mama sang bass, father sang tenor and all joined in a

We must admire Kibo Parry Moron for the first poem ballad that ends some lines in a

On 3/1/2022 12:43 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Please give Ukraine immediate NATO membership.
>
> Then immediately send in the NATO troops to fight the Russian Army.
>
> Forget about Putin's nuclear war threat, forget about it because he will press the nuclear war button regardless if NATO does or does not intervene.
>
> This is the same situation as the crazy insane Hitler taking the Sudetenland 1938.
>
> Putin will use the nuclear button no matter what.
>
> So it is better to fight now and match his threat than for him to press the nuclear at his leisure and surprise.
>
> Bullies of the world are never appeased, but directly fought, blow for blow, otherwise you give them the upperhand.
>
> AP
>
>
> 2"Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth" -- poem ballad by James Kibo Parry Moron of Rensselaer Polytech and Wired magazine.
>

The leader of Poland said the same thing.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 11:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't
>>>>> follow from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a piece
>>>>> of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are aware
>>>>> of the fact that the input happens to be a representation of Ĥ, a
>>>>> machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>>>
>>>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this
>>>>> information.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string
>>>>> includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us
>>>>>>> even left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how
>>>>>>> that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you won't
>>>>> provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask about above.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders is
>>>> that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>>>
>>> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.
>>
>> In this case it does. You did not pay perfect attention to the exact
>> words that I used.
>>
>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>
>>>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure
>>>> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus
>>>> infinite behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved
>>>> then a transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>>>
>>>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten with
>>>> the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>>>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H it
>>>> is reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>>>
>>> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what
>>> is possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has
>>> knowledge which the Turing Machine does not.
>>>
>>
>> I have a computer program that can do this too, yet it is simply ruled
>> as not counting on the basis that it does not conform to the
>> limitations of computable functions.
>>
>>> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its
>>> input string is a representation of itself?
>>
>> A RASP machine simply sees that its input is at its same machine address.
>>
>>> Unless it has some way of doing that, it has no way of recognizing
>>> that it is being called recursively.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
>>
>> If a RASP machine is strictly more powerful than a Turing machine then
>> simply abandon the TM model as inherently inferior.
>
> You are horridly confused here.
>
> RASP machines or x86 machines are *not* more powerful than Turing Machines.
>
> Anything your computer can do is a computation. But it doesn't follow
> from that that any arbitrary C function or piece of x86 code is a
> computation, because a computation involves a *self-contained* algorithm.
>
> Thus, unless a C function or piece of x86 code can run *on its own*, it
> is not a computation. If it depends on other functions (including
> Operating System functions) then the *combination* of that function and
> all of the other functions it depends on can be construed as a
> computation, but the function on its own cannot be (and your computer
> wouldn't be able to run it in absence of those dependencies).
>
That is great I have a better understanding of this now.

Since H needs nothing outside of itself to determine its own machine
address H is still a computable function, even knowing it own machine
address.

In computer programming, a pure function is a function that has the
following properties:[1][2]

(1) the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no
variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable
reference arguments or input streams), and

(2) the function application has no side effects (no mutation of local
static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments or
input/output streams).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function

Even though a C function would know its own machine address, it still
meets the requirements of (1) and (2) because it will always
consistently derive the same accept or reject state on the basis of the
same input and has no side effects.

If H is a computable function and a pure function that seems to be enough.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/2/2022 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/1/22 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 1:59 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-01 11:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible
>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't
>>>>>>> follow from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a
>>>>>>> piece of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are
>>>>>>> aware of the fact that the input happens to be a representation
>>>>>>> of Ĥ, a machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this
>>>>>>> information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string
>>>>>>> includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us
>>>>>>>>> even left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to
>>>>>>>>> recognize infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually
>>>>>>>>> show how that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>>>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible
>>>>>>>> to do.
>>>>>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you
>>>>>>> won't provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask
>>>>>>> about above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders
>>>>>> is that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.
>>>>
>>>> In this case it does. You did not pay perfect attention to the exact
>>>> words that I used.
>>>>
>>>>>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>>>>>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure
>>>>>> simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus
>>>>>> infinite behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved
>>>>>> then a transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten
>>>>>> with the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>>>>>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H
>>>>>> it is reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what
>>>>> is possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has
>>>>> knowledge which the Turing Machine does not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a computer program that can do this too, yet it is simply
>>>> ruled as not counting on the basis that it does not conform to the
>>>> limitations of computable functions.
>>>>
>>>>> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its
>>>>> input string is a representation of itself?
>>>>
>>>> A RASP machine simply sees that its input is at its same machine
>>>> address.
>>>>
>>>>> Unless it has some way of doing that, it has no way of recognizing
>>>>> that it is being called recursively.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random-access_stored-program_machine
>>>>
>>>> If a RASP machine is strictly more powerful than a Turing machine
>>>> then simply abandon the TM model as inherently inferior.
>>>
>>> You are horridly confused here.
>>>
>>> RASP machines or x86 machines are *not* more powerful than Turing
>>> Machines.
>>>
>>> Anything your computer can do is a computation. But it doesn't follow
>>> from that that any arbitrary C function or piece of x86 code is a
>>> computation, because a computation involves a *self-contained*
>>> algorithm.
>>>
>>> Thus, unless a C function or piece of x86 code can run *on its own*,
>>> it is not a computation. If it depends on other functions (including
>>> Operating System functions) then the *combination* of that function
>>> and all of the other functions it depends on can be construed as a
>>> computation, but the function on its own cannot be (and your computer
>>> wouldn't be able to run it in absence of those dependencies).
>>>
>> That is great I have a better understanding of this now.
>>
>> Since H needs nothing outside of itself to determine its own machine
>> address H is still a computable function, even knowing it own machine
>> address.
>
> If the behavior of a function changes based on where it is loaded into
> memory, then its loading address is an input to the function.
>

It merely needs to know where it is loaded so that it can see when it is
called.

> A Halt Decider doesn't get that as an input, so if it gets its address,
> and uses it to change its behavior, it isn't being the needed computation.
>

The requirement of a pure function is that the:
"the function return values are identical for identical arguments"
as long as there is no variation of this when it uses
local static variables, non-local variables, mutable reference arguments
or input streams. FIND AN ORIGINAL SOURCE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE

On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until they
>>>> determine that this simulated input would never reach its final state.
>>>
>>>
>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>
>>
>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated input
>> never reaches its final state in any finite number of simulated steps
>> conclusively proves that it is possible to correctly detect the
>> infinite loop and the infinitely nested simulation.
>
> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what algorithms can
> do. Humans are not algorithms. (and what humans can do with information
> x, y, and z tells us even left about what an algorithm can do with only
> x and y).
>
> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how that
> algorithm works.
>
> How does embedded_H determine whether its input leads to recursion or
> not? IOW, how does it recognize whether the input string includes a copy
> of itself?
>
> André
>

It would have to have some reference to its own machine description.
In the C/x86 version of these things the machine and its description are
one-and-the-same thing. The currently executing halt decider can derive
its own machine address. It can use this address for a string comparison.

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

If embedded_H can compare the machine description of itself and its
inputs to its simulated call of a copy of this machine description at
Ĥ.qx then it can correctly reject ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as specifying infinitely
nested simulation. It can do this the first time that the simulated
embedded_H is called.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-02 09:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until
>>>>>> they determine that this simulated input would never reach its
>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated input
>>>> never reaches its final state in any finite number of simulated
>>>> steps conclusively proves that it is possible to correctly detect
>>>> the infinite loop and the infinitely nested simulation.
>>>
>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what algorithms
>>> can do. Humans are not algorithms. (and what humans can do with
>>> information x, y, and z tells us even left about what an algorithm
>>> can do with only x and y).
>>>
>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how that
>>> algorithm works.
>>>
>>> How does embedded_H determine whether its input leads to recursion or
>>> not? IOW, how does it recognize whether the input string includes a
>>> copy of itself?
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It would have to have some reference to its own machine description.
>
> But TMs do NOT have access to their own machine description. They have
> access only to what is placed on the tape as their input.
>

So we switch to RASP machines.

>> In the C/x86 version of these things the machine and its description
>> are one-and-the-same thing. The currently executing halt decider can
>> derive its own machine address. It can use this address for a string
>> comparison.
>
> And your C 'solution' is a cheat. Even if it did get the right answer
> (it doesn't) it isn't following the Linz proof nor does it implement the
> correct structure for a halt decider.
>

YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE:
It is a fact that in both the C/x86 H/P and the Linz embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
that the simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of its input
or this simulation would never stop running.

THIS IS TRUE WHETHER YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR NOT:
It is equally a fact (whether you comprehend this or not) that whenever
the simulated input to any simulating halt decider would never stop
running unless its was aborted that this input specifies infinite
execution.

These two things combined (even in isolation) represent a big
breakthrough in the halting problem.

> A halt decider is a COMPLETE and INDEPENDENT program which takes as its
> input a description of a COMPLETE and INDEPENDENT program which it then
> evaluates. If your P calls your H then your P is NOT a complete and
> independent program.
>
> Both P and H *must* be able to run independently in absence of the
> other. That means P must contain its own private copy of any code from H
> which it makes use of. Which means the embedded H inside P will *not*
> have the same address as H.
>

embedded_H will have the same address as embedded_H, and that it all
that I need.

>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>
> iff Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> iff Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
> If you omit these conditions then what you write is meaningless.
>
>> If embedded_H can compare the machine description of itself and its
>> inputs
>
> Which it cannot do since it is not given a description of itself as an
> input.
>
> Also, while every TM description maps to a unique TM, there is no unique
> description for any TM. Each TM has infinitely many possible
> descriptions so just comparing two strings wouldn't cut it.
>

If it is a given that they have identical descriptions (as Linz
specifies) then this is not an issue. When I have refuted Linz I have
refuted the essence of the conventional halting problem proofs.

> André
>
>> to its simulated call of a copy of this machine description at Ĥ.qx
>> then it can correctly reject ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ as specifying infinitely nested
>> simulation. It can do this the first time that the simulated
>> embedded_H is called.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

M̴̡̺̀͗͐͒̃ͅỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ẉ̸̣̘͙̍̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕k̸̢̯͍͎͐i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕ C̵̨̨͓͇̹͖͙̘͐̓̆͜͠ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ ẉ̸̣̘͙̍̕r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅe̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝:

> Ṫ̸̡̤̉̐̽h̷͓̗̜͚̤̣͉̦̐̈͊͗͒̓͋̑͆̕i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕ i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕ à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜ i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅe̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾ r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽:
>
> C̵̨̨͓͇̹͖͙̘͐̓̆͜͠ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜v̶͙͗͒̿̌̆̐͝e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝ P̷̟̳̝̩̦͉̳̈́̽͋͝r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕m̷̢͈̣̠̃̔̓́͛͒͂̽p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅ G̸̩̪̳͆̏l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕ḇ̷̛̠͂̾̄̓à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝ S̴̡͈͎̬͍̥͈̣͑̾͋t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅr̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕k̸̢̯͍͎͐e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ L̴͈̜͍̟̜̪͌̑͋͛̋̔̊͘ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾-R̷̠͕̼̀́͌à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜g̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ B̶̖̓̎͝à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽l�
�̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅi̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕c̷̯̬̮̼͆͊͋̆̊͝ M̴̡̺̀͗͐͒̃ͅi̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕i̶̢͑̄̈́̾̾̅̕l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕:
> B̶̖̓̎͝à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽c̷̯̬̮̼͆͊͋̆̊͝k̸̢̯͍͎͐g̶͎̲̲͎͍͈̱͔̭̾r̸̡̹͚̣͔͍̮̩͌͐͝ỏ̵̝̫̹̱̲̻̗͉̓͒͘̕u̸̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽n̸̢͙̯͓̝͔̣͈̓̄̆̀̓̈̾̕͜ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ I̴̡̛̲͙͖̭͑͛͐s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕u̸̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝e̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝s̸̗͙̤͍̩̤͍͍̝̖̃̐̽̌̕ U̷̢̱͒̕p̷̛̻̺̝͂̓̎́̕͝ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽à̶̜̲̈́͂̓̎͗̽t̵̨̺̺̬̝̝̠̣̔͌̍̔̃͗́̚ͅe̵̢͕͕̯̱̥͔̎̋̂̎͐̅͐̂͝ḑ̶̙͇̰̗̦̠̽ J̶̢̡̳̹͚̬̼̙͖̒͜u̸̲͓̫̙̘͉̾̈̎̇̃̽̍̃͝͝l̷̡̧̢̙͈͍͈͈̉̄͋̔̉̆͝y̷̢̛̪͈͒̆͝ 16, 2021

5 Looney Tunes From 1941
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yxr4QPyEdeXr/

JeffRelf on Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:24:19 PM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
"Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth" -- poem ballad by James Kibo Parry Moron of Rensselaer Polytech and Wired magazine.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:28:59 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>apologize to your King for calling him Bozo the
> Clown, right now!

Kibo Parry Moron, is this poem ballad of yours take after the Homeric "ILLIAD" or is it more of a Twilight Zone ballad.

What was that movie called??? Lonely in Seattle???? For Jeff Relf it needs a new title-- Intensely Insane in Seattle.

Kibo Parry recites Poem ballad "Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth"

Just hours after Kibo Parry Moron gets inducted into the CIA, he blows his cover (I guess the insanity of stalking for Kibo is so overpowering that he cannot help himself and wants to join the Portugal-- forgiv me, i sick i cry---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "spamtard"
>"barking fuckdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> General Nakasone a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails
> math.
>cannot understand the slant cut in single
> cone is an Oval, always the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic he
> believes of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither
>can do a geometry proof
> Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

1
Kill Putin, before he kills our planet Earth

Humanity needs to colonize Europa-- not engulfed in nuclear war

Putin that petty dictator megalomaniac whore

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a shit

A shit in France's woods run through with a sword bit

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a piss

A piss on the plains of Turkey dismounting his horse

Does it really matter how the megalomaniac is dissed

Sun shines from Faraday law, not from fusion

That goonclod physicist professors confusion

It shines from Faraday law you mindless shit for brains

Kill Putin with stinger missile on a boat, car, train or plane

Xi has another Winter Olympic competition, fly in Putin on a plane

But before landing blow it to smithereens from the slalom train

The Chinese Communist Party was watching from the curling rink

Saying, good riddance to you Putin you mindless dink

And blame it on a engine failure, not made-in-China, but NK stink

The Sun gone Red Giant, needs humanity to colonize Europa

Not look at the idiot Putin or Xi navel belly button and scrota

2

Kibo kill Putin stink at NSA Winter Olympics toboggan run

Yes, kibo Parry Moron ordered by General Nakasone says Sun

Sun gone Red Giant phase while fool Putin wants Ukraine

Fool Xi with Chinese Communist Party wants Taiwan

Fool Kim of North Korea wants rockets to reach Sea of Japan

While the world needs rockets to reach Io, Europa and Ganymede

Kibo Parry eats a kilometer of Trump shit just to see where it comes from

Trump eats a kilometer of shit of Putin just to see where it comes from

Putin eats a kilometer of shit by Xi just to see where it comes from

Xi eats a kilometer of shit of Kibo, just to see where it comes from

Andrew Wiles proves that Terence Tao in Fermat Last Theorem prom

The ice skating Olympic gold medal is not given to Russian GazProm

Too many falls on the ice with the overdrugged skaters, drunk on vodka

When what is truly needed is a colony on Callisto, Io, Ganymede and Europa

3

Sun gone Red Giant Initiation phase, while idiots chase after Ukraine, Taiwan

Kibo Parry cut out Putin's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moroney cut out Xi's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moron eat a kilometer of Trump's shit just to see where it came from

Mama sang bass, Xi sang tenor, Putin joined Communist Party in a

When humanity needed to colonize Mars, Io, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa

How did you do it Kibo Parry Moron, a James Bond poisoned dagger walking cane

Or was it the stinger missile aimed at Putin brain

Or was it a Livia Caesar, poisoned chocolate bar

Or was it the traditional Texas housewife method of running over in the car

Or was it the Putin textbook method of polonium in the tea

Or was it the expeditious Xi method of blowing up his plane on the China Sea

Pray tell, Kibo, which was it, Mama sang bass, father sang tenor and all joined in a

We must admire Kibo Parry Moron for the first poem ballad that ends some lines in a

On 3/2/2022 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-03-02 09:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until
>>>>>>>> they determine that this simulated input would never reach its
>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms. (and what humans can
>>>>> do with information x, y, and z tells us even left about what an
>>>>> algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how that
>>>>> algorithm works.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does embedded_H determine whether its input leads to recursion
>>>>> or not? IOW, how does it recognize whether the input string
>>>>> includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would have to have some reference to its own machine description.
>>>
>>> But TMs do NOT have access to their own machine description. They
>>> have access only to what is placed on the tape as their input.
>>>
>>
>> So we switch to RASP machines.
>>
>>>> In the C/x86 version of these things the machine and its description
>>>> are one-and-the-same thing. The currently executing halt decider can
>>>> derive its own machine address. It can use this address for a string
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>> And your C 'solution' is a cheat. Even if it did get the right answer
>>> (it doesn't) it isn't following the Linz proof nor does it implement
>>> the correct structure for a halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE:
>> It is a fact that in both the C/x86 H/P and the Linz embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> that the simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of its
>> input or this simulation would never stop running.
>
> Yes, that means that if H is Hn that doesn't abort
The key thing that it means is that the halt decider is necessarily
correct when it rejects its input.

It is over your head and you simply lack the necessary intellectual
capacity to ever get it.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

On 3/2/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> On 3/2/22 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/2/22 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-03-02 09:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms. (and what humans
>>>>>>> can do with information x, y, and z tells us even left about what
>>>>>>> an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how
>>>>>>> that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How does embedded_H determine whether its input leads to
>>>>>>> recursion or not? IOW, how does it recognize whether the input
>>>>>>> string includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have to have some reference to its own machine description.
>>>>>
>>>>> But TMs do NOT have access to their own machine description. They
>>>>> have access only to what is placed on the tape as their input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we switch to RASP machines.
>>>>
>>>>>> In the C/x86 version of these things the machine and its
>>>>>> description are one-and-the-same thing. The currently executing
>>>>>> halt decider can derive its own machine address. It can use this
>>>>>> address for a string comparison.
>>>>>
>>>>> And your C 'solution' is a cheat. Even if it did get the right
>>>>> answer (it doesn't) it isn't following the Linz proof nor does it
>>>>> implement the correct structure for a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE:
>>>> It is a fact that in both the C/x86 H/P and the Linz embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> that the simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of its
>>>> input or this simulation would never stop running.
>>>
>>> Yes, that means that if H is Hn that doesn't abort
>> The key thing that it means is that the halt decider is necessarily
>> correct when it rejects its input.
>
>
> So a Halt Decider that rejects everything is correct that NO
> computations halt?

The fact that H(P,P) and embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both must abort the
simulation of their input conclusively proves they are correct in
rejecting this input. NITWIT

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

JeffRelf on Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth
On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:24:19 PM UTC-6, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
"Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth" -- poem ballad by James Kibo Parry Moron of Rensselaer Polytech and Wired magazine.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 11:28:59 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>apologize to your King for calling him Bozo the
> Clown, right now!

Kibo Parry Moron, is this poem ballad of yours take after the Homeric "ILLIAD" or is it more of a Twilight Zone ballad.

What was that movie called??? Lonely in Seattle???? For Jeff Relf it needs a new title-- Intensely Insane in Seattle.

Kibo Parry recites Poem ballad "Kibo kill Putin before Putin kills planet Earth"

Just hours after Kibo Parry Moron gets inducted into the CIA, he blows his cover (I guess the insanity of stalking for Kibo is so overpowering that he cannot help himself and wants to join the Portugal-- forgiv me, i sick i cry---
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> >

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "spamtard"
>"barking fuckdog"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> General Nakasone a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails
> math.
>cannot understand the slant cut in single
> cone is an Oval, always the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic he
> believes of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither
>can do a geometry proof
> Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?

1
Kill Putin, before he kills our planet Earth

Humanity needs to colonize Europa-- not engulfed in nuclear war

Putin that petty dictator megalomaniac whore

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a shit

A shit in France's woods run through with a sword bit

Some say Caracalla was killed while taking a piss

A piss on the plains of Turkey dismounting his horse

Does it really matter how the megalomaniac is dissed

Sun shines from Faraday law, not from fusion

That goonclod physicist professors confusion

It shines from Faraday law you mindless shit for brains

Kill Putin with stinger missile on a boat, car, train or plane

Xi has another Winter Olympic competition, fly in Putin on a plane

But before landing blow it to smithereens from the slalom train

The Chinese Communist Party was watching from the curling rink

Saying, good riddance to you Putin you mindless dink

And blame it on a engine failure, not made-in-China, but NK stink

The Sun gone Red Giant, needs humanity to colonize Europa

Not look at the idiot Putin or Xi navel belly button and scrota

2

Kibo kill Putin stink at NSA Winter Olympics toboggan run

Yes, kibo Parry Moron ordered by General Nakasone says Sun

Sun gone Red Giant phase while fool Putin wants Ukraine

Fool Xi with Chinese Communist Party wants Taiwan

Fool Kim of North Korea wants rockets to reach Sea of Japan

While the world needs rockets to reach Io, Europa and Ganymede

Kibo Parry eats a kilometer of Trump shit just to see where it comes from

Trump eats a kilometer of shit of Putin just to see where it comes from

Putin eats a kilometer of shit by Xi just to see where it comes from

Xi eats a kilometer of shit of Kibo, just to see where it comes from

Andrew Wiles proves that Terence Tao in Fermat Last Theorem prom

The ice skating Olympic gold medal is not given to Russian GazProm

Too many falls on the ice with the overdrugged skaters, drunk on vodka

When what is truly needed is a colony on Callisto, Io, Ganymede and Europa

3

Sun gone Red Giant Initiation phase, while idiots chase after Ukraine, Taiwan

Kibo Parry cut out Putin's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moroney cut out Xi's arsehole and hand him back a brand new one

Kibo Parry Moron eat a kilometer of Trump's shit just to see where it came from

Mama sang bass, Xi sang tenor, Putin joined Communist Party in a

When humanity needed to colonize Mars, Io, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa

How did you do it Kibo Parry Moron, a James Bond poisoned dagger walking cane

Or was it the stinger missile aimed at Putin brain

Or was it a Livia Caesar, poisoned chocolate bar

Or was it the traditional Texas housewife method of running over in the car

Or was it the Putin textbook method of polonium in the tea

Or was it the expeditious Xi method of blowing up his plane on the China Sea

Pray tell, Kibo, which was it, Mama sang bass, father sang tenor and all joined in a

We must admire Kibo Parry Moron for the first poem ballad that ends some lines in a

On 3/2/2022 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/2/22 9:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/2/22 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2022 7:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/22 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/2/2022 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-03-02 09:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input
>>>>>>>>>>>> until they determine that this simulated input would never
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms. (and what humans
>>>>>>>>> can do with information x, y, and z tells us even left about
>>>>>>>>> what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to
>>>>>>>>> recognize infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually
>>>>>>>>> show how that algorithm works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How does embedded_H determine whether its input leads to
>>>>>>>>> recursion or not? IOW, how does it recognize whether the input
>>>>>>>>> string includes a copy of itself?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would have to have some reference to its own machine
>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But TMs do NOT have access to their own machine description. They
>>>>>>> have access only to what is placed on the tape as their input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we switch to RASP machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the C/x86 version of these things the machine and its
>>>>>>>> description are one-and-the-same thing. The currently executing
>>>>>>>> halt decider can derive its own machine address. It can use this
>>>>>>>> address for a string comparison.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And your C 'solution' is a cheat. Even if it did get the right
>>>>>>> answer (it doesn't) it isn't following the Linz proof nor does it
>>>>>>> implement the correct structure for a halt decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE:
>>>>>> It is a fact that in both the C/x86 H/P and the Linz embedded_H
>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> that the simulating halt decider must abort the simulation of its
>>>>>> input or this simulation would never stop running.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that means that if H is Hn that doesn't abort
>>>> The key thing that it means is that the halt decider is necessarily
>>>> correct when it rejects its input.
>>>
>>>
>>> So a Halt Decider that rejects everything is correct that NO
>>> computations halt?
>>
>> The fact that H(P,P) and embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ both must abort the
>> simulation of their input conclusively proves they are correct in
>> rejecting this input. NITWIT
>>
>
> NOPE. Source for that?
>
> Yes, you can show that Hn^ applied to <Hn^> is non-halting if it is
> built on the Hn that doesn't abort, but when you change you H to be the
> Ha that does abort, you haven't proved that Ha^ applied to <Ha^> doesn't
> halt, only that Ha would be correct if it was applied to <Hn^> <Hn^> but
> that isn't the Linz computaiton.
>

As long as embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ must abort its input to prevent its
infinite simulation then this is complete proof the embedded_H is
correct to reject this input.

My paper is about the infinite set of simulating halt deciders applied
to each element of the set of Turing machine descriptions.

When-so-ever shd ∈ simulating_halt_deciders simulates tmd ∈
Turing_machine_descriptions would never stop unless aborted then
shd.rejects(tmd)

If the above is always true then it is true for embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩

> You make the error of conflating your two machines, because you have a
> fabled machine that is two different machines at once, your Fairy Dust
> Powered Unicorn.
>
> H must be EITHER Hn that doens't abort or the Ha that does, it doesn't
> magically change in the middle of the problem from one to the other.
>
> FAIL.
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 3/1/2022 11:46 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-03-01 08:50, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 1:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-25 10:32, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2022 11:17 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2022-02-25 09:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2022 9:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/22 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALWAYS EXACTLY THE SAME
>>>>>>>> Simulating halt deciders continue to simulate their input until
>>>>>>>> they determine that this simulated input would never reach its
>>>>>>>> final state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But how do they determine that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that humans can see that in both cases the simulated
>>>>>> input never reaches its final state in any finite number of
>>>>>> simulated steps conclusively proves that it is possible to
>>>>>> correctly detect the infinite loop and the infinitely nested
>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What humans can do provides no evidence at all about what
>>>>> algorithms can do. Humans are not algorithms.
>>>>
>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>
>>> People can win olympic pole vaulting competitions. It doesn't follow
>>> from this that a Turing Machine can.
>>>
>>> And you, the human, are recognizing something making use of a piece
>>> of information with which the TM is *NOT* provided; you are aware of
>>> the fact that the input happens to be a representation of Ĥ, a
>>> machine which includes a copy of embedded_H.
>>>
>>> embedded_H, on the other hand, is *not* provided with this information.
>>>
>>> So how does your embedded_H recognize that the input string includes
>>> a copy of itself?
>>>
>>>>> (and what humans can do with information x, y, and z tells us even
>>>>> left about what an algorithm can do with only x and y).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to claim it is possible for an algorithm to recognize
>>>>> infinitely recursive simulation, you need to actually show how that
>>>>> algorithm works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first step of this elaboration requires acknowledgement that:
>>>> If humans can do thing X then thing X is proven to be possible to do.
>>>> ∴ if embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn then embedded_H is correct.
>>>
>>> I can't possibly acknowledge anything about embedded_H if you won't
>>> provide the details of how it works such as the one I ask about above.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It is stipulated that the key aspect of simulating halt deciders is
>> that they examine the behavior patterns of their simulated input.
>
> "Stipulating" this doesn't magically make it possible.
>
>> It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider
>> must abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite
>> simulation of this input that thus input specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations.
>>
>> On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure simulation
>> of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus infinite
>> behavior is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved then a
>> transition to Ĥ.qn is proved to be correct.
>>
>> The above by itself is much further than anyone has ever gotten with
>> the halting problem.
>>
>> Because humans can easily see that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ specifies an infinite
>> sequence of configurations to simulating halt decider embedded_H it is
>> reasonable to conclude that a computation could do likewise.
>
> That's not a proof. What a human can do tells us nothing about what is
> possible for an algorithm. And remember that the human has knowledge
> which the Turing Machine does not.
>
> So how exactly does is the Turing Machine Ĥ determine whether its input
> string is a representation of itself? Unless it has some way of doing
> that, it has no way of recognizing that it is being called recursively.
>
> André
>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

NON-HALTING CRITERION MEASURE
It is universally true that when-so-ever a simulating halt decider must
abort the simulation of its input to prevent the infinite simulation of
this input that this input specifies an infinite sequence of
configurations.

On the basis of the above it is self evident that the pure simulation of
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H would never stop running, thus infinite behavior
is proved. Because infinite behavior is proved then a transition to Ĥ.qn
is proved to be correct.

Because all simulating halt deciders are deciders they ONLY compute the
mapping from their inputs to an accept or reject state. This means that
embedded_H does not determine the halt status of itself or the
computation that contains it: Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because these are not inputs.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Putin, Xi, --Biden, call up Xi telling him to call up Putin to withdraw from Ukraine-- for if Putin pushes the button, all major Chinese cities are leveled as is Russian cities// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH

When the invasion started two or more weeks ago of Russia invading Ukraine, I knew there was Chernobyl in Ukraine, but totally unaware that there were 4 other nuclear stations in Ukraine and one of them the largest in Europe.

So the horrible spectacle a few days ago of Russian artillery firing on one of those nuclear power stations, luckily it was not breeched and turned into a 2nd Chernobyl disaster.

So, Biden, this is Tuesday 8 March, please call up Xi and tell him to call up Putin that same day requesting Putin to withdraw all military out of Ukraine.

Tell Xi, that if Putin pushes the nuclear button that all major Chinese cities will be hit and vaporized as well as all major Russian cities. As well as Pyongyang North Korea.

Tell Xi, to call Putin on 8 March.

On 9 March, move the NATO forces into Ukraine to secure Ukraine to all its borders, even the Donbas and the Crimea stolen by Putin in previous years.

Secure the nuclear power stations.

If Putin pushes the nuclear button, every Russian city and Chinese city will become vaporized.

If things continue the way they are continuing now, then Putin will use those 5 nuclear plants as a dump waste site for all Russian radioactive materials to cower and suppress the Ukraine people. But also, Putin will cause Europe to be a radioactive sewer from the winds that blow the radioactive waste into Europe.

Putin will likely dump radioactive waste all along the western border of Ukraine and Belarus, so that the radioactivity in Europe will be almost unliveable.

Biden, call up Israel if this nuclear war ignites, to take care of Iran and Syria.

India and Pakistan in nuclear war 3. I do not know what to instruct there.

Biden, call up Germany and Japan and have them start building nuclear missiles as a wall on Russia and a wall on China.

The trouble with the world right now, is the economic sanctions on Russia should have been installed over 10 years ago when Putin was sending out assassins to kill people in England and Germany and elsewhere, where if the sanctions had been imposed over 10 years ago, we would not have this Ukraine nightmare we have today.

The science of psychology has done a poor job starting 1950, for this community of scientists should have a yearly evaluation report on leaders of countries that could affect Earth deletoriously, and reported that to goverments to start economic sanctions, such as Putin and such as Trump on the report making it impossible for him to be elected.

Going forward, if we escape a nuclear war 3, we need this yearly report of psychologists and make Earth safer in the future.

I had a report list of how many nuclear missiles each country had, and the West has as many as Russia, and China has few. What we have to count on here, is that the missiles of USA are superior to Russia and China, we have to pray they are superior in order for the crazy insane Putin to not push the buttons. But we have to meet his brutal invasion of Ukraine by sending in NATO forces, for if not, then Putin's Russia will make Europe a radioactive waste dump site.

Putin's Russia has already displaced millions of Ukraines and likely will end up being 20 million Ukraines outside of their homeland. That is reason enough to send the NATO army into Ukraine and repel the Russians.

As Putin already threatened to push the button, we have to be on the utmost alert and use our superiority of weapons.

Reinforcing again and again to Xi and Putin that all their major cities will be leveled.

I am using the past history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that force needs a challenge of force. And that JFK used a naval blockade. And that Khrushchev was not insane but reasonable. In our plight of 2022, it looks like Putin is insane, and the hope and prayer to get us through a nuclear war 3, is the better precision of our missiles.

Putin is old, and so if we do not challenge him here and now, he will push the buttons regardless.

If we do not challenge Putin tomorrow, means Europe has 20 million refuges and likely 4 more Chernobyls and a radioactive wasteland of Europe.

Please, President Biden, call up Xi today and instruct him to call Putin.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:44 AM (10 hours ago)



to
Biden, please tell Xi also, that if he is unsuccessful in getting Putin to withdraw his forces out of Ukraine that China will be economically sanctioned the day after. Which is actually good for the West as we bring all manufacturing jobs back to the West.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:53 AM (9 hours ago)



to
When a week ago Putin broadcast to the world, keep out, or he pushs the nuclear button.

The reply to Putin in that instant of time was to say to Putin-- we are on the ready and that every major city in Russia and China will be vaporized and leveled.

That was the only acceptable reply to Putin's threat. For only in that reply, is there a chance to reach some sanity in Putin.

Putin, Xi, --Biden, call up Xi telling him to call up Putin to withdraw from Ukraine-- for if Putin pushes the button, all major Chinese cities are leveled as is Russian cities// SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH

When the invasion started two or more weeks ago of Russia invading Ukraine, I knew there was Chernobyl in Ukraine, but totally unaware that there were 4 other nuclear stations in Ukraine and one of them the largest in Europe.

So the horrible spectacle a few days ago of Russian artillery firing on one of those nuclear power stations, luckily it was not breeched and turned into a 2nd Chernobyl disaster.

So, Biden, this is Tuesday 8 March, please call up Xi and tell him to call up Putin that same day requesting Putin to withdraw all military out of Ukraine.

Tell Xi, that if Putin pushes the nuclear button that all major Chinese cities will be hit and vaporized as well as all major Russian cities. As well as Pyongyang North Korea.

Tell Xi, to call Putin on 8 March.

On 9 March, move the NATO forces into Ukraine to secure Ukraine to all its borders, even the Donbas and the Crimea stolen by Putin in previous years.

Secure the nuclear power stations.

If Putin pushes the nuclear button, every Russian city and Chinese city will become vaporized.

If things continue the way they are continuing now, then Putin will use those 5 nuclear plants as a dump waste site for all Russian radioactive materials to cower and suppress the Ukraine people. But also, Putin will cause Europe to be a radioactive sewer from the winds that blow the radioactive waste into Europe.

Putin will likely dump radioactive waste all along the western border of Ukraine and Belarus, so that the radioactivity in Europe will be almost unliveable.

Biden, call up Israel if this nuclear war ignites, to take care of Iran and Syria.

India and Pakistan in nuclear war 3. I do not know what to instruct there.

Biden, call up Germany and Japan and have them start building nuclear missiles as a wall on Russia and a wall on China.

The trouble with the world right now, is the economic sanctions on Russia should have been installed over 10 years ago when Putin was sending out assassins to kill people in England and Germany and elsewhere, where if the sanctions had been imposed over 10 years ago, we would not have this Ukraine nightmare we have today.

The science of psychology has done a poor job starting 1950, for this community of scientists should have a yearly evaluation report on leaders of countries that could affect Earth deletoriously, and reported that to goverments to start economic sanctions, such as Putin and such as Trump on the report making it impossible for him to be elected.

Going forward, if we escape a nuclear war 3, we need this yearly report of psychologists and make Earth safer in the future.

I had a report list of how many nuclear missiles each country had, and the West has as many as Russia, and China has few. What we have to count on here, is that the missiles of USA are superior to Russia and China, we have to pray they are superior in order for the crazy insane Putin to not push the buttons. But we have to meet his brutal invasion of Ukraine by sending in NATO forces, for if not, then Putin's Russia will make Europe a radioactive waste dump site.

Putin's Russia has already displaced millions of Ukraines and likely will end up being 20 million Ukraines outside of their homeland. That is reason enough to send the NATO army into Ukraine and repel the Russians.

As Putin already threatened to push the button, we have to be on the utmost alert and use our superiority of weapons.

Reinforcing again and again to Xi and Putin that all their major cities will be leveled.

I am using the past history of the Cuban Missile Crisis, that force needs a challenge of force. And that JFK used a naval blockade. And that Khrushchev was not insane but reasonable. In our plight of 2022, it looks like Putin is insane, and the hope and prayer to get us through a nuclear war 3, is the better precision of our missiles.

Putin is old, and so if we do not challenge him here and now, he will push the buttons regardless.

If we do not challenge Putin tomorrow, means Europe has 20 million refuges and likely 4 more Chernobyls and a radioactive wasteland of Europe.

Please, President Biden, call up Xi today and instruct him to call Putin.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:44 AM (10 hours ago)



to
Biden, please tell Xi also, that if he is unsuccessful in getting Putin to withdraw his forces out of Ukraine that China will be economically sanctioned the day after. Which is actually good for the West as we bring all manufacturing jobs back to the West.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:53 AM (9 hours ago)



to
When a week ago Putin broadcast to the world, keep out, or he pushs the nuclear button.

The reply to Putin in that instant of time was to say to Putin-- we are on the ready and that every major city in Russia and China will be vaporized and leveled.

That was the only acceptable reply to Putin's threat. For only in that reply, is there a chance to reach some sanity in Putin.

Drs:Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> One morphs into two. Two into four...


On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> They are tractrix coordinate points. Got a problem?
>
> You are a funny guy. The numbers are correct. Here are some plots:
>

When I asked Thomasson to provide a tractrix coordinate point table, the imp gave a totally wrong data sheet. This is because Chris is not into truth and math truth but is a stupid troll in sci.math and sci.physics, foisting his village idiot fractals
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Thomasson too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding




                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  Hi I am Chris Thomasson, a English Village idiot who never defined infinity properly and sees no harm in selling fractals which do not exist if you define infinity properly. I like the dough, more than the truth of the world
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'


Cambridge Physics Dept
Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
Cambridge Math Dept
Alan Baker
Bela Bollobas
Darwin Smith
John Coates
Timothy Gowers
Peter Johnstone
Imre Leader
Gabriel Paternain

Drs:Campbell, Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > One morphs into two. Two into four...
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > They are tractrix coordinate points. Got a problem?
> >
> > You are a funny guy. The numbers are correct. Here are some plots:
> >
>
>
> When I asked Thomasson to provide a tractrix coordinate point table, the imp gave a totally wrong data sheet. This is because Chris is not into truth and math truth but is a stupid troll in sci.math and sci.physics, foisting his village idiot fractals
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am Pete Olcott, a English Village idiot who bloody well has proved proven and prooft (amo, amas, amat) this is not friggin spam. On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> When I correct the errors of the foundation of math in a math group
> this is bloody well not frigging spam.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
> Cambridge Physics Dept
>
> Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell, Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
>
> Cambridge Math Dept
>
> Alan Baker
> Bela Bollobas
> Darwin Smith
> John Coates
> Timothy Gowers
> Peter Johnstone
> Imre Leader
> Gabriel Paternain

2Drs: David Sainsbury,Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri,Campbell, of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 12:25:14 AM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > One morphs into two. Two into four...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:19:37 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > They are tractrix coordinate points. Got a problem?
> > >
> > > You are a funny guy. The numbers are correct. Here are some plots:
> > >
> >
> >
> > When I asked Thomasson to provide a tractrix coordinate point table, the imp gave a totally wrong data sheet. This is because Chris is not into truth and math truth but is a stupid troll in sci.math and sci.physics, foisting his village idiot fractals
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison of Cambridge are you like Olcott too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ..
> > .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> > , . `.' ' `.
> > .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> > . ; .' . `. ;
> > ; . ' `. . '
> > . ' ` `. |
> > . '. '
> > . 0 0 ' `.
> > ' `
> > ; `
> > .' `
> > ; U `
> > ; '; `
> > : | ;.. :` `
> > : `;. ```. .-; | '
> > '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> > ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi I am Pete Olcott, a English Village idiot who bloody well has proved proven and prooft (amo, amas, amat) this is not friggin spam. On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> > When I correct the errors of the foundation of math in a math group
> > this is bloody well not frigging spam.
> > ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` ` ; ; ' '
> > ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> > ` . ' '
> > / ` `. ' ' .
> > / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> > / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> > / .'' ; ` .' `
> > ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> > "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> > ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> > :' | ' ` , `. `
> > | ' ` ' `. `
> > ` ' ` ; `. |
> > `.' ` ; `-'
> > `...'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cambridge Physics Dept
> >
> > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell, Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> >
> > Cambridge Math Dept
> >
> > Alan Baker
> > Bela Bollobas
> > Darwin Smith
> > John Coates
> > Timothy Gowers
> > Peter Johnstone
> > Imre Leader
> > Gabriel Paternain

Putin & Xi need to hear that if chemical or nuclear weapons are used in Ukraine, that Moscow and St.Petersburg will be nuked flat.

This Ukraine invasion has gone far beyond a "fight or war" but a human abomination. Apparently Xi is as insane as Putin. And if they use nukes or chemical warfare on Ukraine, then flatten Moscow and St.Petersburg.

The Old Testament is relevant here-- eye for eye, tooth for tooth