Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
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.philosophy
Date : 09. Jun 2025, 16:29:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1026ukn$k2tr$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote:
On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:
On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>
No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with algorithms,
>
That is stupidly counter-factual.
>
>
That you think that shows that
>
My understanding is deeper than yours.
No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.
>
But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,
>
There you go.
>
which is what is meant in this context.
>
It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.
>
And because your HHH does not work with the description/ specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not working on the halting problem.
>
>
HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>
>
Which you stated only includes the instructions of the function DDD on multiple occasions (see below),
>
It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
my reply that you erased.
>
HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>
 Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine code of the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, and that address 000015c3 is part of DDD?
I admit that:
(a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH,
(b) the directly executed DDD() and
(c) the directly executed HHH()
WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS
HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD.
Because this is true it derives conclusive proof
that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
That people here disagree with self-evident truth
seems to indicate that people here are liars.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
--
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
9 Jun 25 * Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point74olcott
9 Jun 25 +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point67dbush
9 Jun 25 i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point66olcott
9 Jun 25 i +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point63dbush
9 Jun 25 i i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point62olcott
9 Jun 25 i i +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point52olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point51dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point50olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i  `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point49dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point47olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point46dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point44olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point43dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point42olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i  +- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i  `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point40dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i   `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point39olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i    `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point38dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i     `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point37olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i      `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point36dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i       `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point35olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i        `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point34dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i         `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point33olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i          `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point32dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i           `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point31olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i            `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point30dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i             `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point29olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i              `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point28dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i               `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point27olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point14dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point13olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point12dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i  `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point11olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i   `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point10dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i    `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point9olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i     `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point8dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i      `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point7olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i       +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point4dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i       i+- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i       i+- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i       i`- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i       `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point2dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                i        `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point12dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                 `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point11olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                  `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point10dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                   +* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point4olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                   i`* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point3dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                   i `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point2olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                   i  `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1dbush
9 Jun 25 i i i   i i                   `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point5Richard Heathfield
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                    +- It has always been impossible to define an INPUT that does the opposite of its halt decider1olcott
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                    `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point3olcott
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                     `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point2Richard Damon
10 Jun 25 i i i   i i                      `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   i `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
9 Jun 25 i i i   `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
10 Jun 25 i i +* Mike can't even count to eight --- HHH(DDD)2olcott
10 Jun 25 i i i`- Re: Mike can't even count to eight --- HHH(DDD)1Richard Damon
14 Jun 25 i i `* The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++7olcott
15 Jun 25 i i  `* Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++6Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 25 i i   +* Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++3olcott
15 Jun 25 i i   i+- Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++1Richard Damon
16 Jun 25 i i   i`- Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++1Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 25 i i   `* Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++2olcott
16 Jun 25 i i    `- Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++1Fred. Zwarts
9 Jun 25 i `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point2Richard Damon
9 Jun 25 i  `- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1olcott
9 Jun 25 +- Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point1Keith Thompson
9 Jun 25 `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point5Richard Damon
9 Jun 25  `* Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point4olcott
14 Jun 25   `* The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++3olcott
15 Jun 25    `* Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++2Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 25     `- Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal