Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/31/25 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 5:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
We only know this:
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
and that is enough.
>

Talking about dishonesty. It is simply not true that simulated D would never stop running unless aborted. It suggests that the input given to H specifies a non-halting program. But it doesn't. The input includes D. D, in turn, has addresses of other functions, including the functions that abort and halt.

 In other words you don't understand what "never aborted" means.

In other words, you don't understand that a program does what it does, and imagining it being something different is just a LIE.

 

So, the input specifies a halting program.
World-class simulators show that no abort is needed. The simulation of the program specified with this input has a natural end.