On 9/5/25 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:
On 9/5/2025 3:27 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-09-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2025 2:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
If "disabling the abort code" means HHH never reports a decision to >>>>> its
caller than HHH is not a halt decider as defined by the Halting
Problem.
Yes it does mean that.
None-the-less it does prove that one of
the two return values is the correct one.
That's literally what the literature on the Halting Problem says right
from the beginning. Every Turing machine either halts or not.
There is a huge difference between the 100% exactly precise
meaning of what I said and the meaning that you referenced.
Because you LIE about doing the actual problem, by LYING about the
meaning of the terms-of-art that you use with wrong meaning.
If you re-read my words again and again 10,000 times like I
have you may notice this huge difference.
I have rethought these things on this forum in 33,941
messages (just now counted) since 6/23/2004 9:34 PM.
I wrote 25% of all messages in this forum since 2003.
From my own POV (having done this) it just seems to me
that you are being terribly sloppy with the meaning of words.
No, it is you being sloppy, because you don't know what your words mean.
You have admitted to this, in that you admit that you claim the right to redefine terms whose meaning you don't agree to.
So
halting deciders are two-values; and for each machine one of the two
values is the correct one.
Not whether the machine halts that is correctly one of
two values. Both the values that the decider reports
have been conventionally understood to be contradicted
so both answers are the wrong answer.
Nope. because the two values are correct for different machines, as the machine includes the EXACT code of the decider it is refuting.
THus, the D based on the H that rejects the input for this D, will halt
and make that the wrong answer (and accepting the right answer), is a DIFFERENT input then the D based on the H that accepts the input of this other D that will never halt, making rejecting the right answer.
Your LIE of calling these two the "same" input just invalidates your
"logic"
A PhD computer science professor that I have had
very extensive discussions with boiled this down to:
Can Carol correctly answer “no” to this (yes/no) question?
Which is just a category error as "Carol" is a volitional being, while
the decider is a deterministic machine, thus Carol has the ability to actually decide on which answer to give, but a given decider has no
"choice" as that has been built into its design.
Credit goes to Richard Damon for seeing the ambiguity of
the original question (without the yes/no). Without this
augmentation Carol could shake her head to indicate "no".
Objective and Subjective Specifications
Eric C.R. Hehner
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf
Which makes the error of not recoginizing the deterministic nature of deciders.
My expertise is in instances of pathological self-reference
found in English, computer science, math and logic.
WHich you still don't really understand.
Computer science is the only one of these cases that
can by exhaustively examined because the other cases
have too much built-in vagueness.
So, why don't you actually learn the computer science, and understand
that a given pure program always will give the same answer for a given input, and the correct simulation of its description will always gives
teh same result.[...]
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
Not sure how long he would last in that class before he calls theMemorizing things via learned by rote is the way that
Teacher a stupid moron, gets a D, and walks out?
On 9/6/2025 7:22 AM, olcott wrote:
[...]
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
Then you should go somewhere else? Perhaps build a soapbox to stand on?
On 9/6/2025 1:38 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/6/2025 7:22 AM, olcott wrote:
[...]
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
Then you should go somewhere else? Perhaps build a soapbox to stand on?
There is no where else.
On 9/6/2025 1:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Memorizing things via learned by rote is the way that
Not sure how long he would last in that class before he calls the
Teacher a stupid moron, gets a D, and walks out?
computer science gets a much shallower understanding
than the philosophy of computation gets by thoroughly
understanding the deep meanings of how and why these
things either fit together coherently or fail to fit
together coherently.
On 9/6/25 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 9/6/2025 1:38 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/6/2025 7:22 AM, olcott wrote:
[...]
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
Then you should go somewhere else? Perhaps build a soapbox to stand on?
There is no where else.
Sure there is.
Why don't you just write to the magazine editors you want to get
published in?
or do you know that would just burn the last bridge you could try.
Maybe try Stack Exchange, or does the fact that there are moderators
there that wouldn't stand for you lies deter you.
On 9/6/2025 1:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Not sure how long he would last in that class before he calls the
Teacher a stupid moron, gets a D, and walks out?
Memorizing things via learned by rote is the way that
computer science gets a much shallower understanding
than the philosophy of computation gets by thoroughly
understanding the deep meanings of how and why these
things either fit together coherently or fail to fit
together coherently.
On 9/6/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-05 17:12:53 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/5/2025 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-04 23:29:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/4/2025 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-03 13:50:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/3/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-02 18:18:51 +0000, olcott said:
Five different LLM systems figured out the recursive simulation >>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior pattern on their own without prompting. >>>>>>>>> They also correctly determined that the HP proof decider would >>>>>>>>> be correct to reject its input as non-halting.
That five artificieal idiots agree does not mean anything.
If they could help you to say something reasonable that would be news >>>>>>>> but so far that hasn't happened.
They are a source that is not so biased against me
that they can focus on what I am actually saying and
not just ignore what I am saying to look for errors.
Finding errors is the most important part. Only if none is found
there is some basis for further discussion.
If someone claims an error and does not prove
that it is an error then they have no way of
directly seeing that it was never an error.
If you don't understand what exacly is regarded as an error or
why it is regarded an error you may ask clarification.
If the explanation of why what is claimed is an error
is not provided I will assume that the claim is baseless.
Even if you reject the error report it is a lie to say that it
is never presented. The poster of the error report may consider
it sufficient that readers who otherwise might be misled
understand the error. It does not matter whehter readers who
are too stupid to apply the erroneous claims believe them
or not.
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
Because I use categorically exhaustive reasoning I already
know it is baseless yet not in such a way that the claimant
can understand by rebuttal. This is why any claims of error
must include their reasoning basis.
On 2025-09-06 14:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
A correct observation is a correct observation even when you call it
an "incorrect assumption". If you con't know what an "assumption" is
don't use the word.
Because I use categorically exhaustive reasoning I already
know it is baseless yet not in such a way that the claimant
can understand by rebuttal. This is why any claims of error
must include their reasoning basis.
A claim of categorically exhasutive reasoning can be refuted by
showing that there are other possibilities.
The conclusion of resoning, whother correct or not, can be rejected
if the premises are not accepted.
On 9/8/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-06 14:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
A correct observation is a correct observation even when you
call it
an "incorrect assumption". If you con't know what an
"assumption" is
don't use the word.
Anything that derives an counter-factual conclusion is incorrect.
On 9/8/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-09-06 14:22:14 +0000, olcott said:
When everyone here has the same false assumptions
then pointing out my error on the basis of these
false assumptions (and not providing this basis)
does not permit the means for to show that those
assumptions are false.
A correct observation is a correct observation even when you call it
an "incorrect assumption". If you con't know what an "assumption" is
don't use the word.
Anything that derives an counter-factual conclusion is incorrect.
Because I use categorically exhaustive reasoning I already
know it is baseless yet not in such a way that the claimant
can understand by rebuttal. This is why any claims of error
must include their reasoning basis.
A claim of categorically exhasutive reasoning can be refuted by
showing that there are other possibilities.
DD emulated by HHH either reaches its final halt
state or not. It can't go to Disneyland instead.
The conclusion of resoning, whother correct or not, can be rejected
if the premises are not accepted.
It can be rejected because someone is in a bad mood.
Correctly refuted is a whole other thing.
On 06/09/2025 14:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<snip>
My point has nothing to do with his (or your) consistency
of use. My aim was to encourage use consistent with all the published
work on the subject.
Naturally you won't find me unco-operative, but it does seem to imply that, having redefined "reject" as "decide it doesn't halt", we need a new word
to cover the concept of turning down a program for being ungrammatical or asyntactical or whatever.
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
On 06/09/2025 14:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
<snip>
My point has nothing to do with his (or your) consistency
of use. My aim was to encourage use consistent with all the published
work on the subject.
Naturally you won't find me unco-operative, but it does seem to imply that, >> having redefined "reject" as "decide it doesn't halt", we need a new word
to cover the concept of turning down a program for being ungrammatical or
asyntactical or whatever.
Decision problems are usually stated so that accept/reject is all you
need. In the case of halting one might state that inputs that are
accepted are those that represent halting TM/input pairs.
Everything
else would be rejected. In that context "rejection" would include
inputs that don't represent valid TM/input pairs.
Obviously one could choose to have many reasons for rejecting an input
as not a member of the set being decided, but there's no theoretical advantage in making the decider tell you about them. If, for some
reason, you really want to complicate the theory with these details then
the decider could have several rejecting states, each for a different
reason to reject an input. Or one could switch the model and have the decider signal membership or non-membership by leaving some specific
result on the tape. But none of the these do anything so simplify the theorems or their proofs.
[Sorry for the delay. I'm not really keeping up with all the group. It seems to be an endless re-hash of the same material from decades ago.]
It is not the behavior of some machine somewhere
else that is "represented" by the finite string.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,069 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 81:18:54 |
| Calls: | 13,728 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 186,961 |
| D/L today: |
5,670 files (1,489M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,416,571 |