Sujet : Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophyDate : 09. Jun 2025, 20:48:02
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1027dpi$npoo$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 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.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
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