Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

Op 25.mei.2025 om 15:52 schreef olcott:

On 5/25/2025 7:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/24/2025 12:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 3:50 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 23/05/2025 21:24, olcott wrote:

>

<snip>

>

Liar

>

An unequivocal response, but it lacks persuasive power.

>
>

When I provide the exact detailed steps of exactly how
people can show that I am wrong and they refuse to
show that I am wrong yet claim that I am wrong this
is the kind of reckless disregard for the truth that
loses defamation cases.

>

When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves you're wrong

>

Without going through all of the detailed steps
that I present that is a reckless disregard for
the truth that loses defamation cases.

>

There you are utterly wrong.  The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus
is true.  Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore be wrong.

>

You might also put up a long winded argument why 2 + 2 = 5, and I would
dismiss this likewise, without bothering to follow your exact detailed
steps.

>

You've also tried, without success, to dismiss one of the proofs of the
Halting Therem as invalid.

>
>

And would be successful if people actually paid
attention to what I said.  That they say that I
am wrong without actually addressing ANY of my
points is actionable.

>
No, that proof you so much dislike is clearly and quite obviously valid
to anybody with any background in mathematics at all.
>

 It only seems that way to people not paying attention.
If I was wrong people could show how I am wrong with
reasoning. Instead they are so sure that I am wrong
that they don't bother paying any attention to what I say.
 

People have paid a very great deal of attention to what you've said, in
an effort to help you understand what you haven't understood.  You've
failed to respond to the help offered.  Instead, you've deluged this
newsgroup with falsehoods.
>

 If that was true then they would not always make sure
to totally ignore my key points, never actually addressing
these points with reasoning at all.
 

That you fail to grasp this proof is entirely down to your lack of
intellectual capacity.
>

 That you fail to see that I am correct is because you
ignore my key points.
 _DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
 Since it is an easily verified fact that DDD emulated
by HHH according to the rules of the x86 language
would never stop running unless aborted by HHH.

It only seems that way because you are not paying attention.
You are dreaming of a HHH without abort code again. That HHH is not present. HHH has code to abort, so there is no need to abort its simulation.
If I was wrong you could show how I am wrong with
reasoning. Instead you are so sure that I am wrong
that you don't bother paying any attention to what I say.
You just ignore what I say and do not even quote it and later claim that nobody has shown any error in your reasoning.
You only repeat your claim without any more support.
So,  using your own words:

 I can't imagine how anyone disagreeing with this
is not a damned liar. If anyone disagrees knowing
that they simply don't understand these things
they too are also damned liars.

 int main()
{
   DDD();  // No matter what the f-ck its caller does
}         // The finite string input to the HHH(DDD)
           // that DDD() calls SPECIFIES a non-halting
           // sequence of configurations.
 

No, the input is a pointer to memory. This memory contains the code for DDD and all functions needed by DDD, including the HHH that aborts. So, the input *specifies* a halting program.
That HHH, due to a bug, does not see that behaviour is in no way an indication that the specification is not there.
It is childish to close your eyes and claim that things you do not see are not present. But that is your reasoning: HHH does not see it, so it is not there.
But it happens more often. You also close your eyes for all rebuttals, because you are so sure that I am wrong that you don't bother paying any attention to what I say.
You just ignore what I say and do not even quote it and later claim that nobody has shown any error in your reasoning. You close your eyes and pretend that it does not exists.
You only repeat your claim without any more support.