Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3

On 5/1/2024 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-30 15:36:00 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 4/30/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 15:40:18 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/29/2024 10:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-29 14:26:59 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/29/2024 4:11 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-28 13:13:48 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 4/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-04-27 17:51:17 +0000, olcott said:
>

When you agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer within
my definition then we can proceed to the next point about whether
my definition is correct or diverges from the standard definition.

>
Nobody will agree that H(D,D) is a correct termination analyzer
until you post a definition of "termination analyzer" and compare
H(D,D) to that definition. And nut even then if the comparison is
insufficient or erronous.

>
Unless they go through every single slight nuance of the details
of my reasoning they won't be able to see that I am correct.

>
Then the expected result is that they will never see that you are correct.
>

Unless I insist that they go through every single slight nuance of the
details of my reasoning THEY ALWAYS LEAP TO THE CONCLUSION THAT I AM
WRONG SIMPLY IGNORING WHAT I SAY.

>
Is there any reason to expect a differen result if you do insist?

>
I now have an airtight proof that I am correct.

>
That does not matter unless you post a pointer to that proof (either
a web page or a publication).
>

>
*That does not work*
At best people simply misinterpret what I say and then conclude
that I must be wrong based on their misinterpretation.

>
That is unavoidable if your presentation is broken to separately
posted parts. Readers may miss some parts or read the parts in a
wrong order, which inevitably affects how they interpret it.
>

Here is the most updated version of my paper.
>
There are single sentences in this paper that require long dialogues
to be fully understood.

>
A paper should be written so that it can be understood without any
dialogue. If a dialogue is needed that indicates that the paper needs
an improvement.
>

>
That is impossible. I tried to have it analyzed on that basis and then
people misconstrue a dozen different points at once and have no idea
what I am saying.

 If it is impossible to say what you want to say then there is
no point to try.
 

It is impossible to say what I need to say in such a way that people
cannot intentionally misconstrue what I say as their rebuttal tactic.
When I insist that we go over all of the details of each key point
then it is no longer possible to intentionally misconstrue what I
say without it being dead obvious that the misconstrual is intentional.

However, one failure is not a proof of impossibility. Improve the
text and ask again.
 

*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

>
You should post a link to that page whenever you are talking about
anything explained on that page (unless, of course, you post a link
to a page that has a better explanation).
>

>
When I do that people very carefully glance at a few words and
then leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong.
>
The only way around that it to require people to go over my ideas
one at a time until we reach mutual agreement on each idea.

 I don't think that is the way. You have already tried so many times
that if that could work it would have worked already.
 

I tried this on another forum with great success. After 150 messages
and replies we got 100% perfect mutual agreement on one key point.
It is a lot like this:
Socratic questioning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_questioning
We have never tried that going completely through every single detail
of reasoning here. My reviews here are mostly you are wrong you don't
know logic you are just a stupid liar.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer