Sujet : Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 29. May 2025, 20:02:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <101ab0d$10eg$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/29/2025 1:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:
On 5/29/2025 12:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 29/05/2025 16:49, olcott wrote:
On 5/28/2025 4:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 28/05/2025 22:05, dbush wrote:
On 5/28/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
My only aim is to show that the conventional halting
problem proof is wrong.
>
But why would you care whether or not the proof is wrong when you've gone on record (multiple times) as stating that what the proof proves is correct?
>
It would certainly earn him a place in history's footnotes, which might well be considered sufficient motive. But he'd have to be able to explain why he's right, which of course he can't.
>
<snip>
>
>
See my post: [Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect]
>
And it seems you still can't.
>
I have already read your article "Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect"[1], which completely fails to explain your proof.
>
Maybe you have no idea what a tautology is.
Maybe you think that asserting something is true is sufficient to make it true. It isn't.
Its the same thing as a self-evident truth.
Maybe you think that asserting something is self-evidently true is sufficient to make it self-evidently true. It isn't.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
>
It is a tautology that any input D to termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the termination behaviour of D.
All that H needs to know is that D
*would never stop running unless aborted*
I can easily sketch out a program that your HHH analyser would impatiently abort as non-terminating, but which could conceivably stop running this year, next year, sometime... or never.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Re: Bad faith and dishonesty