Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/9/25 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/06/2025 21:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>
On 09/06/2025 20:54, dbush wrote:

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on the halting problem, people would stop bothering
you.

Well, I doubt if he'll ever do that, but we could stop bothering him anyway. You'd be amazed at how much time you save. :-)
>

>
Dude!!  THINK what you're suggesting!   What about all the innocent children who might read his posts and come away with the wrong idea about halting?  And if someone doesn't reply pointing out PO's numerous mistakes, that would mean that PO IS RIGHT!  On the Internet, the person who posts last in an argument WINS THAT ARGUMENT, regardless of what that person was actualy saying - that's "usenet rulez"...  You'ld be AGREEING WITH PO, saying that he REALLY IS A GENIUS and everybody else here is a lying idiot!!
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 Every first year computer science student that knows C
can confirm that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
never stop running unless aborted.
 

No, I first year computer science student would know that given the above as the full definition of the input means that a correct simulation of the above program is a linker error of undefined symbol HHH.

The tricky part for people indoctrinated with the
"received view" of the halting problem proofs is
that they believe that HHH is not supposed to report
on the behavior that its actual input actually specifies.

And your part is you think that HHH get to make up the meaning of that input.
I gueas you are just lying that you followed the template of the proof, perhaps because you are too stupid to understand it.

 Instead HHH must report on the behavior of the
directly executed DDD().

Which *IS* as DEFINED the behavior its input actually specifies.
I guesss you think "Definitions" don't actually define what things mean, but just sort of hint at it.

 They never bothered to notice that this directly
executed DDD() IS NOT AN INPUT, instead it is
the caller of HHH().

And you fail to understand that the input *IS* (or at least is claimed to be) the representation of the program DDD, which defines the "behavior of the input", so that which you say it can't be is what it must be,

 They are so sure that I am wrong that they
never notice this key point.

Nope, you are just to stupid to see your error.
But then, it seems you life was just based on lying, so truth was never part of it.,
If H(D) is not asking for H to determine the behavior of D when directly run, then your whole proof is based on the lie where you claimed you were following the rules of the proof program. Since the core part of the proof is that D asks H to decide on itself, if that isn't what H(D) means, you ignored the semantics of the proof.
But since you don't understand what semantics actually are, I guess that just fits you.

 

>
Mike.
ps. ok, I was exagerating slightly :)  The truth is that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DIFFERENT would come to pass if nobody responded to PO - except that posters would have more time for doing other stuff.  PO would continue believing he is a genius, until he dies and stops posting.  He would never "refine and perfect" his argument to the point where he submits his paper for publishing, and would never gain the industry reputation he needs to reapply to Cycorp and be put in charge of Cyc development. All exactly the same!
>

 My ultimate goal here is to formalize the notion of
analytic truth so that we can prevent the rise of the 4th
Reich by providing an objective way to detect lies.

WHich is sort of hard to do when you base you proofs on lies.

 This also will expose the liars of climate change that
are happy to kill off the whole planet as long as they
can keep making fossil fuel profits.

Again, hard to do when you base you proof on lies.

 Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
 See how well reasoned the above paper is before
you dismiss me as a crank.
 

You mean your worthless puff piece?
Sorry, you just don't know what truth actually is.