Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 5/26/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:Nothing wrong found in the claim that Olcott's error were pointe out.On 2025-05-25 14:32:14 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/25/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:If you were not lying you could point at least one pointer to a suchOn 2025-05-24 17:15:50 +0000, olcott said:When they point out errors it is always of this form:
On 5/24/2025 12:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:People are successfull in pointing out errors in what you say.olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:And would be successful if people actually paidOn 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>LiarAn 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 wrongWithout going through all of the detailed stepsThere you are utterly wrong. The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus
that I present that is a reckless disregard for
the truth that loses defamation cases.
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.
attention to what I said.
"that is not the way that I memorized it".
message. But you can't.
Nothing wrong found in the claim that an actuall error in Olcott's reasoningThey never ever show any actual errors in my reasoning.They do. For eample:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 17:07:11 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:That shows an actual error in your reasoning. You can't show any actualOn 5/23/2025 5:06 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:On 23/05/2025 22:06, olcott wrote:When your opponents point to the Turing proof that proves you're wrongWithout going through all of the detailed steps that I present that isThere you are utterly wrong. The Halting Theorem has been proven, thus
a reckless disregard for the truth that loses defamation cases.
is true. Anybody putting up a contrary argument must therefore be
wrong.
error in Alan Mackenzie'sreasoning above.
void DDD()The purpose of a proof is to prove, not to require. Therefore
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
_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]
The key mistake of the conventional halting problem proofs
is that they do not require the halt decider to report on
the actual behavior actually specified by the input.
When HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its finite stringNo, we don't see that. Essential details are hidden somewhere in HHH,
input to the behavior that it actually specifies, we see
that the emulated DDD will continue to call HHH(DDD) in
recursive emulation never able to reach its own emulated
"ret" instruction final halt state.
The recursive emulation invariant is that the emulatedThe DDD that is emulated is the real DDD, which does reach its final
DDD never reaches its own emulated "ret" instruction final
halt state.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.