Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will finally
stop?
/Flibble
On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will finally
stop?
/Flibble
PO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will shrink
to about 6 posts.
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him to "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.
In turn I'd expect
that to drastically cut down PO's need to start new threads - most of
those are just evolutions of his duffer-speak, but in fact not saying anything new. He will post a couple of posts explaining why he is a genius, and the latest theorem he has refuted, but in the absence of feedback that will be the end of it!
Mike.
On 11/1/2025 9:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will finally
stop?
/Flibble
PO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will shrink to about 6 posts.
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him to "evolve" his duffer-speak
in response to objections.
There is no duffer speak to this.
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
I don't think that you have become dishonest
so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2025 9:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will finally >>>> stop?
/Flibble
PO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will
shrink to about 6 posts.
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him
to "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.
There is no duffer speak to this.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
I don't think that you have become dishonest
so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
It is my honest opinion of what you write. Practically every sentence
you write contains ambiguous or incoherent terminology. I do not
suggest that you do that deliberately, or that you can see it when it is pointed out to you. It is a natural effect of not being able to
understand the basic terminology and concepts of the field.
Mike.
On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
On 11/1/2025 9:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will
finally
stop?
/Flibble
PO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will
shrink to about 6 posts.
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for
him to "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.
There is no duffer speak to this.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
I don't think that you have become dishonest
so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
It is my honest opinion of what you write. Practically every sentence
you write contains ambiguous or incoherent terminology. I do not
suggest that you do that deliberately, or that you can see it when it
is pointed out to you. It is a natural effect of not being able to
understand the basic terminology and concepts of the field.
Mike.
So you cannot begin to understand that
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement ???
On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:So you cannot begin to understand that D simulated by H cannot possibly
On 11/1/2025 9:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:
Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here willPO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will
finally stop?
/Flibble
shrink to about 6 posts.
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him
to "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.
There is no duffer speak to this.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement.
I don't think that you have become dishonest so what is up with the
"duffer speak" reference to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
It is my honest opinion of what you write. Practically every sentence
you write contains ambiguous or incoherent terminology. I do not
suggest that you do that deliberately, or that you can see it when it
is pointed out to you. It is a natural effect of not being able to
understand the basic terminology and concepts of the field.
Mike.
reach its own simulated "return" statement ???
PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him to "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
...outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD, DDD,
H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
all references to D, DD, DDD,
H, HHH, etc.
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
 int Halt_Status = H(D);
 if (Halt_Status)
   HERE: goto HERE;
 return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:16 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.
On the other hand, this is an evidence that olcott deliberately lies:
he knows exactly what undecidable is and hide it in 'proof'.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, >>> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
False. The below statement is unclear. "D"
and "H" could refer to:
* an algorithm: i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions such
that where these instructions physically reside is irrelevant
* a C function: has a specific name that can contain any arbitrary set
of instructions
* a finite string: some sequence of bytes that is stipulated to be a complete description of an algorithm and can therefore be used to
exactly replicate the given algorithm and therefore contains all
semantic properties of the described machine.
Therefore, outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD, DDD,
H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, >>> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 7:48 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is >>>> up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
False. The below statement is unclear. "D"
D is provided and H is sufficiently defined.
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
and "H" could refer to:
* an algorithm: i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions such
that where these instructions physically reside is irrelevant
* a C function: has a specific name that can contain any arbitrary set
of instructions
* a finite string: some sequence of bytes that is stipulated to be a
complete description of an algorithm and can therefore be used to
exactly replicate the given algorithm and therefore contains all
semantic properties of the described machine.
Therefore, outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD,
DDD, H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in >>>> your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group >>>> can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you
may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation >>>> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train >>>> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that >>>> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 7:48 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is >>>>> up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
False. The below statement is unclear. "D"
D is provided and H is sufficiently defined.
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
and "H" could refer to:
* an algorithm: i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions such
that where these instructions physically reside is irrelevant
* a C function: has a specific name that can contain any arbitrary
set of instructions
* a finite string: some sequence of bytes that is stipulated to be a
complete description of an algorithm and can therefore be used to
exactly replicate the given algorithm and therefore contains all
semantic properties of the described machine.
Therefore, outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD,
DDD, H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and
reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group >>>>> can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the >>>>> many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/ >>>>> refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you >>>>> may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation >>>>> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train >>>>> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI
that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 7:46 AM, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:16 -0600, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.
You can even get the insult correctly.What? It is smear.
On the other hand, this is an evidence that olcott deliberately lies:
he knows exactly what undecidable is and hide it in 'proof'.
H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/ refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 7:48 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ...
what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must
be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
I provided this C function
int D()
{
 int Halt_Status = H(D);
 if (Halt_Status)
   HERE: goto HERE;
 return Halt_Status;
}
and I specified that at this point the entire
definition of H is that H simulates D.
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
False. The below statement is unclear. "D"
D is provided and H is sufficiently defined.
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must
be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
and "H" could refer to:
* an algorithm: i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions such
that where these instructions physically reside is irrelevant
* a C function: has a specific name that can contain any arbitrary
set of instructions
* a finite string: some sequence of bytes that is stipulated to be a
complete description of an algorithm and can therefore be used to
exactly replicate the given algorithm and therefore contains all
semantic properties of the described machine.
Therefore, outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD,
DDD, H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and
reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the
group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the >>>>>> many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/ >>>>>> refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that
you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it >>>>>> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to >>>>>> promote my greatness and general superiority without
misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT
train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI >>>>>> that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
On 02/11/2025 13:57, olcott wrote:
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
I think it can be called "the entire constraint on H at this point",
rather than "the entire definition of H at this point". To be a
definition of H it would have to be the mathematicians "the existing
unique solution to the constraint that H simulates D" (or conventional shorter forms) which it is not.
I suspect among practitioners there is some ambiguity whether
"definition" refers to "a statement of definitional equivalence" or to
"the set of statements of definitional equivalence iff there's an
ultimate definiens".
Given the conventions of mathematics and of formal systems there is some thought needed (at least by me) to understand the ambiguities among the fields that use the word "definition" or even "the unique solution". A
solution could be an equivalence class of objects, or it could be a
statement of definitional equivalence, or it could be an statement of an equality relation - I've seen all sorts relying on context both explicit
and presumed.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
On 11/2/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:00 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 7:48 AM, dbush wrote:
On 11/2/2025 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:
On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ...
what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must
be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
I provided this C function
int D()
{
  int Halt_Status = H(D);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
and I specified that at this point the entire
definition of H is that H simulates D.
And the meaning of this sentence differs depending on whether each
instance of "D" and "H" refer to:
* an algorithm
* a C function
* a finite string
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
Why the Hell did you say that D was not defined when D was provided?
You didn't specify whether "D" referred to
* an algorithm
* a C function
* a finite string
Failure to prefix all instances of "H" and "D" outside of source code
with exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
Will result in the given statement being rejected as unclear.
False. The below statement is unclear. "D"
D is provided and H is sufficiently defined.
H simulates D is the entire definition of H at this point.
Rejected out-of-hand as unclear. All references to "D" and "H" must
be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
and "H" could refer to:
* an algorithm: i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions
such that where these instructions physically reside is irrelevant
* a C function: has a specific name that can contain any arbitrary
set of instructions
* a finite string: some sequence of bytes that is stipulated to be
a complete description of an algorithm and can therefore be used to >>>>> exactly replicate the given algorithm and therefore contains all
semantic properties of the described machine.
Therefore, outside of actual source code, all references to D, DD,
DDD, H, HHH, etc. must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.
Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and
reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the >>>>>>> group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of >>>>>>> the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/ >>>>>>> refer to?
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that >>>>>>> you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it >>>>>>> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to >>>>>>> promote my greatness and general superiority without
misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general >>>>>>> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT >>>>>>> train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental >>>>>>> AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. >>>>>>>
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,075 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 90:34:42 |
| Calls: | 13,798 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,989 |
| D/L today: |
5,330 files (1,536M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,438,212 |