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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 25. May 2025, 16:15:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100vc78$1e53p$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
21 May 25 * Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion334Richard Damon
21 May 25 +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion2Richard Heathfield
21 May 25 i`- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion1Richard Damon
21 May 25 `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC331olcott
21 May 25  +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC329Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC328olcott
21 May 25  i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC320Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC319olcott
21 May 25  i i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC318Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i  `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC317olcott
21 May 25  i i   `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC316Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Keith Thompson
21 May 25  i i    i`- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC311olcott
21 May 25  i i    i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC310Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC309olcott
21 May 25  i i    i  `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC308Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i   `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC307olcott
21 May 25  i i    i    `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC306Richard Heathfield
21 May 25  i i    i     `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC305olcott
22 May 25  i i    i      `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC304Richard Heathfield
22 May 25  i i    i       `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC303olcott
22 May 25  i i    i        +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC254Richard Heathfield
22 May 25  i i    i        i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC253Keith Thompson
22 May 25  i i    i        i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC251Richard Heathfield
23 May 25  i i    i        i i`* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC250Mike Terry
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +* How do computations actually work?81olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+* Re: How do computations actually work?19wij
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii+* Re: How do computations actually work?17olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii`* Re: How do computations actually work?16Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii `* Re: How do computations actually work?15olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  +* Re: How do computations actually work?6Richard Damon
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i`* Re: How do computations actually work?5olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i +* Re: How do computations actually work?3Fred. Zwarts
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i i`* Re: How do computations actually work?2olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Fred. Zwarts
23 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii  `* Re: How do computations actually work?8Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii   `* Re: How do computations actually work?7olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    +* Re: How do computations actually work?4dbush
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i`* Re: How do computations actually work?3olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1dbush
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i iii    `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii`- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+* Re: How do computations actually work?39Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii`* Re: How do computations actually work?38olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i ii +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii `* Re: How do computations actually work?36Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii  `* Re: How do computations actually work?35olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i ii   +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii   `* Re: How do computations actually work?33Mikko
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii    `* Re: How do computations actually work?32olcott
25 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     +* Re: How do computations actually work?19Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?18olcott
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i `* Re: How do computations actually work?17Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?16olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?15Mikko
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?14olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     +* Re: How do computations actually work?9Fred. Zwarts
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?8olcott
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i `* Re: How do computations actually work?6Fred. Zwarts
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?5Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?4Mikko
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?3Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i     `* Re: How do computations actually work?2olcott
31 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i      `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Fred. Zwarts
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     +* Re: How do computations actually work?3Mikko
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i`* Re: How do computations actually work?2Richard Heathfield
30 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     i `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
29 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     i     `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii     `* Re: How do computations actually work?12Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii      `* Re: How do computations actually work?11olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       +* Re: How do computations actually work?9Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i`* Re: How do computations actually work?8olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i +* Re: How do computations actually work?2Fred. Zwarts
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i i`- Re: How do computations actually work?1olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i `* Re: How do computations actually work?4Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?3olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i   +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
28 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       i   `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i ii       `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
23 May 25  i i    i        i i i+- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i`* Re: How do computations actually work?21Mikko
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i `* Re: How do computations actually work?20olcott
24 May 25  i i    i        i i i  +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i  `* Re: How do computations actually work?18Mikko
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   +* Re: How do computations actually work?4Richard Heathfield
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i`* Re: How do computations actually work?3Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i `* Re: How do computations actually work?2Richard Heathfield
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   i  `- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
25 May 25  i i    i        i i i   `* Re: How do computations actually work?13olcott
26 May 25  i i    i        i i i    `* Re: How do computations actually work?12Mikko
26 May 25  i i    i        i i i     `* Re: How do computations actually work?11olcott
27 May 25  i i    i        i i i      `* Re: How do computations actually work?10Mikko
27 May 25  i i    i        i i i       `* Re: How do computations actually work?9olcott
28 May 25  i i    i        i i i        +- Re: How do computations actually work?1Richard Damon
28 May 25  i i    i        i i i        `* Re: How do computations actually work?7Mikko
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Heathfield
23 May 25  i i    i        i i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC8olcott
23 May 25  i i    i        i i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC159Ben Bacarisse
22 May 25  i i    i        i `- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1olcott
22 May 25  i i    i        `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC48joes
23 May 25  i i    `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Ben Bacarisse
21 May 25  i +* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC5Fred. Zwarts
22 May 25  i `* Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC2Richard Damon
21 May 25  `- Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal