On 11/1/2025 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:I am claiming the verified fact that D simulatedOn 11/1/2025 10:24 AM, dbush wrote:In other words you're claiming that finite string D does not have all semantic properties of machine D,On 11/1/2025 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:>On 11/1/2025 9:37 AM, dbush wrote:>On 11/1/2025 10:22 AM, olcott wrote:>On 11/1/2025 8:53 AM, dbush wrote:>On 11/1/2025 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:>On 11/1/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-31 13:42:38 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/31/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-30 13:15:03 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/30/2025 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-29 16:29:04 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/29/2025 6:02 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-28 14:52:54 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/28/2025 5:06 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:>On 28/10/2025 09:09, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-27 13:45:13 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 10/27/2025 5:10 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-10-25 17:53:27 +0000, olcott said:>
>typedef int (*ptr)(); int HHH(ptr P);>
>
int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) HERE: goto HERE; return Halt_Status; }
>
int main() { HHH(DD); }
Olcott has showm many times that he cannot correctly
determine what other people understand and what they
don't. Sometimes he assumes nobody understands what
others see sas obvious and well known, ar other times he
thinks others understand what actually is nonsense without any meaningful content to be understood.
Now that four different LLM systems have been able reverse-
engineer the non-halting result by merely being told to
faithfully simulate DD with HHH and see what happens this
proves that all of my reviewers have been dishonest with me
for three years.
Another skill Olcott has shown to lack is to determine
whether someone is honest. To determine honesty is not solely
a matter of skill as the information necessary for the
determination is not always avoalable. But Olcott has often
called other people dishonest without sufficient evidence. It
is hard to tell whether he is actually dishonest or stupid or
both, but the result is the same anyway: in matters of
honesty Olcott can be trusted.
ITYM 'can't'.
>
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
>
H simulates D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
that calls H(D) to simulate D
until H sees this repeating pattern.
>
People that know C and deny this are dishonest.
You say more than you know.
Mere empty rhetoric entirely bereft of supporting reasoning. EREBoSR
Your "People that know C and deny this are dishonest" indeed lacks
summporting reasoning but it shows that you try to look as if you
knew what you actually don't know.
>
Anyway, thank you for an example that supports my earlier comment.
2 + 3 = 5
People that know arithmetic and deny this are liars
>
When any unequivocal fact is stated within any
knowledge domain and people knowing this domain
deny it then they are always liars.
Another example: it is rigrously proven that there is no Truing machine
that can be given as an input a description of any Turing machine and
of any valid input to that Truing machine and that accepts if the input
describes a halting computation but rejects if the input describes a
non-halting computation. People who know computation theory and deny
this are liars.
I have proven that this is incorrect yet the damned liars
on this forum refuse to accept the first step of my proof
because they are damned liars.
It is not useful to say "I have proven" wthout a pointer to a proof.
When the exact identity of "the" proof is not specified it is an
error to accept it.
>
The actual sequence of steps that the input to H(D)
i.e. finite string D, which is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine D, including the fact that machine D halts when executed directly.
>
Simply a counter-factual assumption.
False. The above is proven true by the meaning of the words.
Then go through the steps detail by detail.
The above is a semantic tautology. Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect.
>
This is the actual semantic tautology and all
you have as rebuttal is mindless dogmatism.
by H specifies a different sequence of steps than
D simulated by H1. Simply lying about this doesn't
actually change the verified facts of it.
D does as a matter of fact call H(D) in recursive
simulation and D does not call H1 at all.
and are therefore claiming finite string D is not the description of machine D.--
If that's the case, what finite string is the description of machine D? One *must* exist, as you've admitted:
On 9/12/2025 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> every TM has a machine description
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.