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

On 2025-05-26 16:14:48 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/26/2025 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-25 14:32:14 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 5/25/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-24 17:15:50 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 People are successfull in pointing out errors in what you say.

 When they point out errors it is always of this form:
"that is not the way that I memorized it".

 If you were not lying you could point at least one pointer to a such
message. But you can't.

Nothing wrong found in the claim that Olcott's error were pointe out.

They 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:

On 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 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.

 That shows an actual error in your reasoning. You can't show any actual
error in Alan Mackenzie'sreasoning above.

Nothing wrong found in the claim that an actuall error in Olcott's reasoning
is shown.
What follows does not mention any of the points above. It is also to the
topic of the discussion as specified on the subject line.

void DDD()
{
   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.

The purpose of a proof is to prove, not to require. Therefore
it is not an error that a proof does not require.

When HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its finite string
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.

No, we don't see that. Essential details are hidden somewhere in HHH,
which is too big and complicated and uninteresting that we would read
it carefully enough to see the relevant details. Instead we trust that
it does what you claim it does, at least to the extent your claims are
supperted by the traces you have posted. According to your words HHH
does analyses a hypothetical behaviour and assumes that the answer it
gets that way is applicable to the behaviour the input acutally
speifies.

The recursive emulation invariant is that the emulated
DDD never reaches its own emulated "ret" instruction final
halt state.

The DDD that is emulated is the real DDD, which does reach its final
ret indtruction. But the recursive invariant is that HHH fails to
simulate the reporting of halting or non-halting by HHH.
--
Mikko