Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 16. May 2025, 16:19:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1007l2q$3qb7l$12@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
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/16/2025 9:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/16/25 10:00 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/16/2025 8:25 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 14 May 2025 12:22:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/14/2025 12:15 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:43, olcott wrote:
On 5/14/2025 11:16 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 14/05/2025 17:04, olcott wrote:
>
The HP proofs require an input D that can actually do the opposite
of whatever value that H returns. Such an input cannot possibly
exist.
Agreed. That is precisely what Turing proved.
The proof itself cannot exist because it is missing a key element.
>
Yes, it is missing the halt decider.
>
When you try to encode *AN INPUT* that actually does the opposite of
whatever value that its termination analyzer returns in a fully
specified language such as C you will find this is impossible.
DD is exactly that.
>
In a less fully specified language it is far too easy to get confused
about what *AN INPUT* is and what it is not.
DD (or its code) calling the aborting HHH is the input.
>
>
int main()
{
   DD(); // Only idiots expect HHH to report on its caller.
}
>
 Only PATHOLOGICAL LIARS excpet that the call HHH(DD) doesn't mean to answer about what the actual DD does when run,
 Oh, I guess that answers who you are.
 You just admitted that you think the truth is idiotic.
Mike explains all of the details of how the
Sipser quote does derive a correct Simulating Halt Decider.
On 5/14/2025 7:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > There is a natural (and correct) statement that Sipser
 > is far more likely (I'd say) to have agreed to.
 >
 > First you should understand the basic idea behind a
 > "Simulating Halt Decider" (*SHD*) that /partially/
 > simulates its input, while observing each simulation
 > step looking for certain halting/non-halting patterns
 > in the simulation. A simple (working) example here
 > is an input which goes into a tight loop.
(Mike says much more about this)
*Click here to get the whole article*
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1003cu5%242p3g1%241%40dont-email.me%3E
Message-ID: <1003cu5$2p3g1$1@dont-email.me>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 May 25 * What it would take...143Richard Heathfield
10 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...10Richard Damon
10 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...2Richard Damon
10 May 25 ii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
10 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...7olcott
10 May 25 i +- Re: What it would take...1Fred. Zwarts
10 May 25 i `* Re: What it would take...5wij
10 May 25 i  `* Re: What it would take...4olcott
10 May 25 i   +* Re: What it would take...2olcott
10 May 25 i   i`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
11 May 25 i   `- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
12 May 25 +* Re: What it would take...130Ben Bacarisse
12 May 25 i+* Re: What it would take...121Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 ii+* Re: What it would take...118Ben Bacarisse
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?4olcott
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1dbush
13 May 25 iiii+- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii`- Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?1Mikko
13 May 25 iii+* Re: What it would take...16Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii`* How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met15olcott
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met8Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met7olcott
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1dbush
13 May 25 iiii i +- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iiii i +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
13 May 25 iiii i i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Mikko
13 May 25 iiii +* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met5Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii i`* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met4olcott
13 May 25 iiii i `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met3Richard Damon
14 May 25 iiii i  `* Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met2olcott
14 May 25 iiii i   `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iiii `- Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met1Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii`* Re: What it would take...97Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii +- Re: What it would take...1Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii +* Re: What it would take...8olcott
13 May 25 iii i+* Re: What it would take...5Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii ii+* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii iii`- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii ii`* Re: What it would take...2olcott
13 May 25 iii ii `- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i+- Re: What it would take...1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii i`- Re: What it would take...1Mikko
13 May 25 iii `* Re: What it would take...87André G. Isaak
13 May 25 iii  `* Re: What it would take...86olcott
13 May 25 iii   `* Re: What it would take...85Fred. Zwarts
13 May 25 iii    `* Re: What it would take...84Mike Terry
13 May 25 iii     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric83olcott
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric74dbush
13 May 25 iii      i+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric52olcott
13 May 25 iii      ii+* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric50dbush
13 May 25 iii      iii`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP49olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP47dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP46olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP44dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP43olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP42dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP41olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP40dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP39olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP38dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i      `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP37olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i       `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP36dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i        `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP35olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Fred. Zwarts
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i         `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP28Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i          `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP27olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i           `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP26Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i            `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP25olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i             `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP24Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i              `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP23olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP21Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP20olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP18Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP17olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP11Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP10olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP8Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP7olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP6Richard Heathfield
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4dbush
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3olcott
15 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i     `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2Fred. Zwarts
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i i      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1olcott
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1dbush
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP5joes
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i  `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP4olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i   `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP3Richard Damon
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i    `* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP2olcott
16 May 25 iii      iii i i               i i     `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i i               `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1joes
14 May 25 iii      iii i `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      iii `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP1Richard Damon
14 May 25 iii      ii`- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 iii      i`* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric21Richard Heathfield
13 May 25 iii      +* Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric7olcott
13 May 25 iii      `- Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric1Richard Damon
13 May 25 ii`* Re: What it would take...2Mike Terry
12 May 25 i`* Re: What it would take...8Andy Walker
12 May 25 `* Re: What it would take...2olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal