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 : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 27. May 2025, 10:25:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <10140dt$2i2fo$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
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

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