Op 22.jul.2024 om 18:10 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will >>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design requirement that HHH must itself halt.

We also know that any simulation that must be aborted to prevent the
infinite execution of the simulator is necessarily a non-halting input.

(a) is wrong as well.
Olcott fails to see the simple fact that when an aborting and halting
HHH is simulated, no abort is needed.
Therefore, he is unable to see that (a) is wrong, when it aborts a
halting program.
HHH when simulated by HHH runs on cycle behind its simulator, so, when
the simulator aborts, the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go after
which it would abort and halt. This proves that the abort by the
simulating HHH was not needed.
Olcott fails to see an important difference between HHH that aborts and
an HHH that does not abort. The HHH that aborts, halts and does not need
the be aborted when simulated. Olcott is still dreaming of the HHH that
does not abort, but such dreams are irrelevant for the HHH that aborts.

He tries to hide these simple facts by introducing the unneeded DDD.

int main() {
return HHH(main);
}

Without DDD the same problem is present, which makes clear that the
problem is in HHH, not in DDD.

The simple fact is that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will >>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read. All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success. Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any mistake. My proof shown below is a truism thus is necessarily correct.

[ .... ]

Your "proof" is no such thing. It makes wild assertions, and doesn't
start from that which is acknowledged to be true.

You are a crank. Your knowledge of the subject is very much less than
your self opinion. There is absolutely no point pointing out specific
mistakes you make. You just ignore such points. You have been ignoring
them for years, and if I pointed out a mistake you would ignore that,
too. There's nothing to be gained by arguing with cranks.

Your ability to reason abstractly is missing. All this stuff you've
spent the last 20 years on is mastered in, at most, a few hours by the
typical student studying it. And you still don't get it.

Lots of people on this newsgroup have tried to help you understand the
subject matter: currenly, most notably Richard, Fred, Mikko. In the
past, Ben, and several others.

You're not interested in learning; you just want people to admit you're
right, something which isn't going to happen, given how objectively wrong
you are. If you want people to agree with you, you'd probably be better arguing over a softer, less definite subject, such as politics or
economics or religion; there, you'd surely find people to agree with any opinion, no matter how outlandish. Sadly for you, that isn't the case in
the foundations of mathematics.

So, no, I'm not going to enter into pointless arguments with you, when experience shows you ignore points made, insult the person you're arguing
with and learn nothing. I've got far better things to do with my time.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will >>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read. All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success. Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any mistake.

What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I >>>>> will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH >>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but >>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong. >>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning, >>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
mistake.

What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?

In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?

What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"? In
most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong, and you
simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact. You
repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
fashion, either.

You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of times. You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed
out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry. You are arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
supporting evidence. You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.

In short, trying to debate technical matters with you is a total waste of
time, as many people have found out. Most of them have given up and gone
away.

I see nothing wrong in what you call the "ad hominem attacks" against
you. They are true, and relevant to the rest of the discussion here.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op 23.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef olcott:

On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I >>>>>>> will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH >>>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.
All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's
wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the >>>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract
reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him >>>>>> learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless
repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any >>>>> mistake.

What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?

In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?

What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"?  In
most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong,

*No as many as one person ever actually showed that*

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design requirement that HHH must itself halt.

We also know that (a) is wrong, because it aborts too soon, when the
simulation of itself has still one cycle to go. This makes the
simulation incomplete and therefore incorrect. It also fails the design requirement that its simulation must be correct.
So, both hypothetical ways are wrong. There is no correct way.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
This has been pointed out to you many times, but you ignore it and keep
saying that no as many as one person ever actually showed that.

For example I have proved that my point is correct recently
to you several times and you make sure to not even look at
it on the basis that you baselessly assume that I did not
change my words to make them more clear.

Many people looked at it and found many errors, but you ignore them and
keep saying that no as many as one person ever actually showed that.

There are more key details that I did not provide so
that you do not get overwhelmed and ignore everything
that I say.

and you
simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact.  You
repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
fashion, either.

Whenever any rebuttal is based on a provably false assumption
I stop reading it.

But when other people do that with your contributions, you start to
complain that not enough attention was paid to it.

You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of
times.  You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed >> out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry.  You are >> arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
supporting evidence.  You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical >> logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.

Mike Terry is the most competent and accurate reviewer
yet even he makes sure to simply ignore key points that
I make and leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong
without even carefully seeing what I am actually saying.

He only does this on one key issue, every other aspect
of his review seems to be accurate.

Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
(tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.

Mike and I could never go to closure on the details of how
this can be implemented because he begins this discussion
with the certainty that I am wrong about this issue thus
will not discuss it. Other than that Mike's reviews seem
to be accurate.

I implementing the above with a way for the simulated
instances to pass their execution trace up to the master
simulator and Mike persistently believed that this was the
master simulator passing information down to the slaves.

Every rebuttal of my work has been specifically counter-factual.

Only because you twist the meaning of 'fact', because you could not
present any fact to be counter.
You did not present facts, only false claims.
When errors are pointed out, you ignore them and keep repeating those
false claims.
E.g., you could never find an error in the following, but you keep
ignoring it.

DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:

int main() {
return HHH(main);
}

This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD,
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides
that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which
is incorrect.

Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of
recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the
simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles,
because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH,
it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct
simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria olcott stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times
olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such
a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end
confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach
the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true
that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incorrect.

Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to
detect a non-halting behaviour.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/23/24 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I >>>>>>> will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH >>>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.
All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's
wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the >>>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract
reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him >>>>>> learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless
repetition?

Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any >>>>> mistake.

What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?

In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?

What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"?  In
most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong,

*No as many as one person ever actually showed that*

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.

We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design requirement that HHH must itself halt.

and (a) is wrong because it says that DDD doesn't halt when it does.

Your error is assume that the problem is in fact computable.

Since every HHH gets a DIFFERENT DDD to answer, the fact that the DDD
given to the HHH that doesn't aborts needs to be aborfed doesn't mean
that the DDD given to the HHH that does abort needs to be aborted too.

For example I have proved that my point is correct recently
to you several times and you make sure to not even look at
it on the basis that you baselessly assume that I did not
change my words to make them more clear.

No, you have LIED about such a proof, and you fail to answer the errors
pointed out, because you KNOW you are wrong but refuse to look at the
errors.

You are just proving that you are mentally incompetent, and just an
ignorant pathological lying idiot that just recklessly disregards the
truth becuase you just can't understand it.

If you think otherwise, WRITE YOU PAPER AND SUBMIT IT.

AND GET THE REJECTION THAT WILL SHUT YOU DOWN as you get laughed out of
town.

There are more key details that I did not provide so
that you do not get overwhelmed and ignore everything
that I say.

and you
simply ignore other people's arguments that establish that fact.  You
repeat falsehood after falsehood here, and don't do it in a polite
fashion, either.

Whenever any rebuttal is based on a provably false assumption
I stop reading it.

As you do for any rebuttal that says something that you disagree with,
even if it is correct.

Failure to point out the error is just an admittion that you have been
lying and have no grounds for you claims. The biggest part of your
problem is you don't know the theory you are talking about, so can't
actually quote and accepted axioms to make a real argument.

You ignore rational argument, and repeat your falsehoods many hundreds of
times.  You lack the capacity for abstract reasoning, as has been pointed >> out several times by several people, most notably by Mike Terry.  You are >> arrogant, in that you believe yourself to be a genius, without any
supporting evidence.  You are ignorant of the foundations of mathematical >> logic, and your arrogance prevents you learning it.

Mike Terry is the most competent and accurate reviewer
yet even he makes sure to simply ignore key points that
I make and leaps to the conclusion that I must be wrong
without even carefully seeing what I am actually saying.

He only does this on one key issue, every other aspect
of his review seems to be accurate.

Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
(tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.

Mike and I could never go to closure on the details of how
this can be implemented because he begins this discussion
with the certainty that I am wrong about this issue thus
will not discuss it. Other than that Mike's reviews seem
to be accurate.

I implementing the above with a way for the simulated
instances to pass their execution trace up to the master
simulator and Mike persistently believed that this was the
master simulator passing information down to the slaves.

Every rebuttal of my work has been specifically counter-factual.

In short, trying to debate technical matters with you is a total waste of
time, as many people have found out.  Most of them have given up and gone >> away.

I see nothing wrong in what you call the "ad hominem attacks" against
you.  They are true, and relevant to the rest of the discussion here.

When an ad hominem attack is your only basis then you have
less than no basis at all.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-23 14:34:36 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:

[ .... ]

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will >>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH >>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but >>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.

Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong. >>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning, >>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.

May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition? >>>>
Thanks!

Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point out any
mistake.

What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?

In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?

You are lying again. That is not the same in other words.
I saw no rebuttals of ad hominem attacs against you.

--
Mikko

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)