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

On 5/13/2025 8:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:03 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 11:21 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 10:47 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 13/05/2025 12:54, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.mei.2025 om 07:06 schreef olcott:

On 5/12/2025 11:41 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-05-12 21:23, Mike Terry wrote:
>

Mind you it does seem to have gone mad the last month or so. It seems there are only about 2 or 3 actual variations of what PO is saying and all the rest is several thousand repeats by both PO and responders...

>
Those who insist on responding to Olcott (of which I admit I have occasionally been one despite my better intuitions) would be well advised to adopt something like the rule of ko (in the game go) which prohibits one from returning to the exact same position. Simply repeating the same objection after olcott has ignored it is pointless. If he didn't get the objection the fiftieth time he's not going to get it the fifty-first time either.
>
If people adopted this policy most of the threads on this forum would be considerably shorter.
>
André
>

>
If people would actually address rather than
dishonestly dodge the key points that I making
they would see that I am correct.

>
If olcott would only stop ignoring everything that disturbs his dreams, he would see that his key points have been addresses and refuted many times already.

>
We might call that a disturbing ko.
>
Mike.

>
The actual reasoning why HHH is supposed to report
on the behavior of the direct execution of DD()
instead of the actual behavior that the finite
string of DD specifies:

>
Quite simply, it's the behavior of the direct execution that we want to know about.
>

>
Just like naive set theory wanted to know
about Russell's Paradox until ZFC came along
and ruled that questions about Russell's Paradox
are based on an incorrect notion of set theory.

>
But unlike Russell's Paradox, there's nothing wrong with the fact that a halt decider doesn't exist.
>
>

>
Sure there is.

>
Nope.  Russell's Paradox was derived from the base axioms of naive set theory, proving the whole system was inconsistent.
>
In contrast, there is nothing in existing computation theory that requires that a halt decider exists.

 I see you made no attempt to refute the above statement.  Unless you can show from the axioms of computation theory that the following requirements can be met, your argument has no basis:
  Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
 A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
 (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
 

>

A halt decider doesn't exist
for the same reason that the set of all sets
that do not contain themselves does not exist.
*As defined both were simply wrong-headed ideas*

>
There's nothing wrong-headed about wanting to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.

>
Yes there is. I have proven this countless times.

 That requirements are impossible to satisfy doesn't make them wrong.  It just makes them impossible to satisfy, which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
 

It did with Russell's Paradox.
ZFC rejected the whole foundation upon which
RP was built.
ZFC did not solve some other Russell's Paradox
it rejected the whole idea of RP as nonsense.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer