Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric

On 5/15/25 12:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/14/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/14/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:

On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>

Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and responders...

>
Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the game go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same position. Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the fiftieth time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time either.
>
If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum would be considerably shorter.
>
André
>

>
If people would actually address rather than
dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
they would see that I am correct.

>
If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and refuted many times already.

>
We might call that a disturbing ko.
>
Mike.

>
The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:
>
*DD emulated by HHH according to*
*the rules of the x86 language*
>
has never been explained. The closest thing to
reasoning that was provided on this point is
"that is what textbooks say".
>

>
ZFC reformulated set theory correcting its error
and the original set theory is now called naive
set theory.
>
When we understand that a termination analyzer
must compute the mapping from its input to the
behavior that this input actually specifies
then all of the conventional halting problem
proof fail.

>
But since that behavior is *DEFINED* to be the behavior of the program represented when run, it is your PROOF that fails, because it uses a strawman.
>

>
In other words ZFC is completely wrong because it did
not address the Russell's Paradox *that was defined in*
naive set theory.
>

>
No, it dealt with Russell's Paradox by creating a brand new Set Theory that wasn't suseptable to it.
>
ZFC didn't "fix" Naive Set Theory, as you can't do that, and still be in it. They created an alternative, that did what people needed, so they used it.
>

 ZFC replaced the erroneous naive set theory.

No, as naive set theory still exists.
They created a new set theory.

 

You are welcome to try and create your POOPS that isn't susseptable to the "problem" of non-computable Functions, but you need to actually define you system, and it doesn't change the fact that in Classical Comoputation Theory, there are non-computable functions (like Halting).
>
Of course, it is certain that your computation system will be a lot less powerful, as that is what is needed to be done to get around the "problem".

 The spec sufficiently defines it.
 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 

WHich your HHH doesn't do, for several reasons.
First, the above is a statement about PROGRAMS, the entities H and D must be programs will fully defined algorithms, as that is the basic concept of what Professor Sipser talks about.
Since you have admitted the your DDD isn't actually a program, but just a non-leaf function that doesn't inlcude the HHH that it calls, you can't use the statement that you don't meet the requirements of.
Second, "Its simulated D" will refer to the complete simulation of the D it was given as its input. The "its simulated" meaning which D we are looking at, it has to be this EXACT D, and thus include the code of the particular H that your initial decider would see. This is the H that ultimately by your logic will abort and return 0.
The simulation of that D, means the correct simulation of it, not the partial one done by H, as that is what simulation MEANS in the theory, partial simulation must be explicitly mentioned (and defined as to what you mean). Since the actual correst simultion of the input DDD (whcih isn't by HHH since it doesn't do it, but like HHH1 shows) will reach a final state, HHH could not have correctly determined something that doesn't happen, unless you logic allows for lying, as yours seems to do.
Sorry, you are just showing how stupid you are and that you are nothing but a pathological liar that just doesn't understand what he is doing.