Re: Three days from now is the two year anniversary of Ben's agreement

On 10/11/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 6:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
>

On 2024-10-08 07:09, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/8/24 8:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

... after a short break.
>
      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.

In other words, you don't understand the concept of defense of the truth.

>
Defence of the truth for whose sake?
>
Nobody who matters takes Olcott seriously. There's no reason to defend 'the
truth' from him.

>
Quite.  But, worse, I think "defending the truth" is actually
"perpetuating the falsehoods" because PO posts simply in order to get
attention.  I suspect he has severe NPD -- his self-worth is entirely
determined up by the merit of the people he can engage with.  If people
stopped replying he'd stop posting. Sure, there would be an "extinction
burst" of insults and goading posts to try to get a response, but if
everyone held firm he'd have to go someone else for the fix.
>

 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
 Thus when H is an emulating termination analyzer that reports
on whether or not its emulation of its input finite string x86
machine code P(P) must be aborted H is unequivocally correct.
 Whether or not and how this applies to the halting problem
with UTM based halt deciders and finite string Turing machine
descriptions is another different issue.
 

Except that the DEFINITION of the question of whether or not its emulaiton must be aborted is EXACTLY the halting criteria, as, if its input, when completely emulated will reach a final state, with the HHH that it calls doing that the HHH giving the answer does, then that HHH didn't NEED to abort its input, but did so anyway.
Your "logic" of looking at a DIFFERENT DDD that calls a DIFFERENT HHH that doesn't abort just proves you don't know what a program is, because you are just an ignorant fool that chose to not learn what he is talking about.