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

On 6/9/2025 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:46 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:14 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:48 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:20 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 1:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

>
By replying to a yes or no question with the full
and complete justification forces the respondent
to look more deeply into these things than simply
dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.

>
But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
>

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

>
And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only includes the code of the function DDD as you've stated below,

>
*In other words you are too stupid to understand this*
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

>
Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below)
>

>
If you disagree with the above you are disagreeing
with a self-evident truth.
>

>
I see you made no attempt to refute what I said, confirming your agreement.
>

>
Not at all. I will not tolerate any scatter-brained
attempt at changing the subject, especially when you
proved that you don't even understand the meaning of
the words.

>
>
Just admit that you're not working on the halting problem and people will stop disagreeing with you.
>

>
We have been over this too many times.
Do you really not remember what I said?
>

>
I remember that you said that your HHH doesn't take a description / specification of an algorithm,

>
I never said that

>
Yes you did, see below.  As you yourself said:
>

>
When you reply with just the word-for-word quote of
me saying exactly that I will look at the quote. I
will not even look at your attempt to change the
subject.
>

>
You said, as quoted below:
* That the machine code of function HHH is not part of the finite string input DD / DDD
* That 000015c3 is not an instruction of DDD
>

>
No time/date stamp indicates that you are probably lying.

>
Note the "as quoted below" part.  As you yourself said:
>

 I am looking for an exact word-for-word quote with
a time and date stamp RIGHT HERE, all of your
misdirection indicates that you have no such thing.

That you can't be bothered to look down a few lines to get the proof you want proves that you're not actually interested in the truth and are attempting to misdirect from what you've admitted.
Also:
Let the record show that Peter Olcott trimmed everything below in his prior reply.

On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.
 All you're doing is proving how much you'll lie and shamelessly hide the evidence to do so.
 Further trimming of this will be taken as your official, on-the-record admission that you are not in fact working on the halting problem and have been lying all this time that you have.
 

Therefore, as per the above criteria:
Let The Record Show
That Peter Olcott
Has *offically* admitted:
That he is *not* working on the halting problem and that he has been *lying* all this time that he has.

Both of those mean that your HHH doesn't take a description / specification of an algorithm, meaning you're not working on the halting problem.
>
>
And again:
>
On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.
>
>

>
On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
 > It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
 > my reply that you erased.
>
>

On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original
 >>>>>>> was given.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.
 >>>
 >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite
 >>> string HHH
 >>>
 >>
 >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.
 >>
 >
 > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore
 > has nothing to do with the halting problem.
 >
>
On 6/7/2025 10:56 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
 >>>> the machine address of 00002183.
 >>>>
 >>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
 >>>> the machine address of 00002190.
 >>>
 >>> False.
 >>>
 >>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at the
 >>> machine address of 000015c3,
 >>
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
 >
 > In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.  And since the
 > halting problem is about algorithms, what you're working on has nothing
 > to do with the halting problem.
 >
 > If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on
 > the halting problem, people would stop bothering you.