Sujet : Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point
De : dbush.mobile (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dbush)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophyDate : 09. Jun 2025, 20:59:16
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1027eej$nuf1$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/9/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/9/2025 2:49 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/9/2025 3:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/9/2025 2:42 PM, dbush wrote:
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
>
Proves that I will not tolerate anything besides
a direct verbatim quote that is time-and-date
stamped that 100% exactly proves your claim.
>
That you keep insisting on muddying the waters
with something besides this seems to prove that
you are dishonest.
>
>
About what I'd expect from someone who just admitted to lying about working on the halting problem all this time:
>
I already addressed this too.
This seems to prove that you never
pay any attention to anything that I say.
I pay attention to the fact that you've admitted on the record that:
* What the halting problem proofs prove is correct
* DDD is not correctly simulated by HHH
* The simulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborts
* Your HHH doesn't work with algorithms and has nothing to do with the halting problem
* You've been lying about working on the halting problem
And I'll be happy to show where you've admitted each of the above on request.
Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point
Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point