Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION?

On 5/12/2025 6:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
 

On 12/05/2025 18:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
 

The HHH code doesn't exactly invite confidence in its author, and his theory
is all over the place, but a thought experiment suggests itself.
 If we were not all wasting our time bickering with a career bickerer... if
we were to really /really/ try, could we patch up his case and send him on
to his Turing Award? And if so, how?

Eh?

 Do you know the term 'steelmanning'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

 Yes.  That is, as it happens, how I address cranks.  I don't usually
argue against them but try to get them to say, as clearly and as
unambiguously as possible, what they are trying to say.  After a lot of
back and forth I got PO to be clear and unambiguous about what he was
saying.  For example, I asked
 | Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false is
| the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?

 H is required to compute the mapping from its
finite string input to the behavior that this
finite string actually specifies.