Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its >>> simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the
simulated HHH would abort and halt.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

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

Op 15.aug.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>> DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts >>>>> its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the
simulated HHH would abort and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

You don't understand Mike correctly and you are twisting his words. A
call on authority does not prove anything.
The evidence that HHH was aborted one cycle before it would halt shows
that it is true:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

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

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its >>>>> simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort
and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

And stop misquoting me. You lack the intelligence to understand what other posters are saying, so I
suggest you simply stop trying to quote them, just to be safe.


Mike.

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

On 15/08/2024 20:39, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>>>> DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its >>>>>>> simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>> the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort
and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*

On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
returns to its caller*>>
(the first one doesn't even have a caller)
Use the above machine language instructions to show this.

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
   DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
   HHH simulates DDD    second level
     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
   HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
   DDD halts        voila
HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its
identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
[It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
for the last few months! :) ]

So your trace is impossible...

There is nothing in what I said above that corrects any mistake in what Fred said. The quote you've
just given is about something else entirely - JUST READ THE QUOTE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID, ffs. :/

On the other hand, don't bother with that - I can see it's genuinely beyond you, and would be
pointless.

Just stop misrepresenting other peoples' views.


Mike.

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

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its >>> simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

You either understand this or do not understand Mike's
correction.

But that is not an excuess to give the wrong answer.

That just points to the dilemma that it must try to solve, but turns out
to be unsolvable, which is why the problem is uncomputable.

Something you don't seem able to understand, perhaps because you just
don't understand the technical meaning of the words (just like you miss
the technical meaning of so many words because you refuse to study them).

So your trace is impossible...

Just like all the others are wrong.

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

On 8/15/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>> DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts >>>>> its
simulation [line 5 above],

then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

Except that it isn't a misunderstanding.

The "behavior of DDD", isn'trestricted to this one copy as HHH simulates
it, but the behavior of ALL copies of DDD, if they were directly run.

You don't seem to understand what fundamentally a "Program" is.

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

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted
simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its
caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH
aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>> the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before
the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

And stop misquoting me.  You lack the intelligence to understand what
other posters are saying, so I suggest you simply stop trying to quote
them, just to be safe.


Mike.

When you corrected Joes on this the same
correction applies to Fred's same mistake.

It is clear you do not understand what Mike said.
It happens with more quotes from you, that you twist the words to give
them a meaning that was clearly not the intention of the writer.
But, if you think Mike is an authority, listen to him when he says:
"Fred is correct".
Try to think about what I say, instead of ignoring it because your
prejudice that you cannot be wrong.

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

Op 16.aug.2024 om 04:24 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>> DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts >>>>> its
simulation [line 5 above],

then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

You do not understand what we say. I have repeated many times that the simulated HHH is aborted before it would halt by itself.
The simulating HHH fails to reach that point, proving an incomplete
simulation.
That is what you do not understand, either because of incompetence, or unwillingness.

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

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted
simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its
caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH
aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>> the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before
the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*

On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
  returns to its caller*>>
(the first one doesn't even have a caller)
Use the above machine language instructions to show this.

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
    HHH simulates DDD    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
    DDD halts        voila
HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its
identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
[It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
for the last few months! :) ]

So your trace is impossible...

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very
short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH
had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it
abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the
abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is
incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by
HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or
your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal
mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.

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

On 8/16/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted
simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its
caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH
aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],

then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

Except that it isn't a misunderstanding.

The "behavior of DDD", isn'trestricted to this one copy as HHH
simulates it, but the behavior of ALL copies of DDD, if they were
directly run.

So you don't seem to understand the same thing that Joes and Fred don't understand, that Mike does understand.

Nope, you are just so stupid you don't understand that Mike is saying
that you don't understand it.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity exetends to not being able to understand that you don't know something, which is the worse kind of
stupidity.

That is worse than the election deniers and climate change deniers.

You don't seem to understand what fundamentally a "Program" is.

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

Op 16.aug.2024 om 14:51 schreef olcott:

On 8/16/2024 1:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.aug.2024 om 04:24 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted
simulation as
correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its
caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH
aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],

then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

You do not understand what we say. I have repeated many times that the
simulated HHH is aborted before it would halt by itself.

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language would never halt by itself.

Exactly, which proves that the simulation is incomplete. We are speaking
of a HHH that aborts. The HHH that does not abort is only in your dreams
(and maybe in you cheating program code if you still use the Root
variable to change the behaviour of the input to that of a non-input).
The input for the simulator, therefore, is the HHH that aborts and halts
(if you do not cheat).
When the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle away
from its own abort.

The simulating HHH fails to reach that point, proving an incomplete
simulation.

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
  Infinite_Recursion();
  OutputString("I never make it here!\n");
}

Unreachable code is unreachable code.

If you do not cheat with the Root variable, the HHH looks more like:

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

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

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as >>>>>>>>> correct.

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient >>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* >>>>>>>>> how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>>>>> DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>>> the same.

It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort
and halt.

Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*

On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
returns to its caller*>>
(the first one doesn't even have a caller)
Use the above machine language instructions to show this.

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
   DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
   HHH simulates DDD    second level
     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
   HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
   DDD halts        voila
HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its
identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
[It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
for the last few months! :) ]

So your trace is impossible...

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I
never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the simulated
HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as
by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring
it immediately.

That's all correct. Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't "understand" /anything/ with
an abstract / logical / mathematical content. He can't understand definitions or their role in
proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge. I'm not kidding or being rude or anything
like that - it's simply the way his brain works. *Of course* PO does not "really read what you
write". Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long time?! [I don't notice any problem
with PO's memory.]

For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his intuitions. Those will not change as a
result of any reasoning presented to him, because, literally, PO does not register any reasoning
going on. It's impossible to fully imagine "what it's like to be PO", just like a seeing person
can't /truly/ imagine how say a blind person or schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a
starter, imagine you're hearing a foreign language and don't understand the words being used. OK,
you recognise the odd word through repetition, and over time you've formed your own (incomplete and
often incorrect) opinions of "what the words are to do with", but that's all. You convince yourself
you understand "what the words actually mean" but that's a delusion! When people reply to what you
say, you don't "understand" what they're really saying. ok, you recognise some of the keywords, and
can tell from the tone of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with you, but that's
about it! You recognise some of the common objections people bring up, and over time you've
developed stock phrases to repeat back to them, but there's no "logic" involved. You don't think
all this is strange, because it's always been this way for you. You don't even realise it's
different for everybody else...

The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be fully capable of reasoning, and
you would realise that you don't understand key points and so on. Instead of a lack of language
understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability" theme or something equally
fundamental, but that's not a common situation people can appreciate - practically /everybody/ in
our lives that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, understand definitions,
understand what people are saying to them and what their beliefs are etc.. But PO is really not
like all those normal people!

If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't happen. How to dispell a false
intuition without using reasoning? If you expect to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy enough,
but not really needed! Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is taken in by PO's duffer
speak. Eventually most posters just get bored repeating the same explanations to him over and over,
and umm stop doing it. [It can take years to get tothat point...]

Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" his claims is a form of "cruel
and unusual punishment" as everybody here by now must appreciate that's far beyond his intellectual
capabilities. Or as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with "taunting" a mentally
handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, which is obviously not nice at all. But PO will not
recognise that he is in that position, and the "taunters" only suspect, rather than truly believe,
that this is in fact the scenario. So no harm done perhaps.

I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, but the thought makes them
uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ reason like normal people, then what would be the /point/ in
constantly arguing [note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this with him over and over and
over? This brings into question their own behaviour... Easier perhaps to fall back on lazy
thinking and just call him a liar, lazy, willfully ignorant and so on.

Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with it? For PO, I feel he has
abandoned his life plan of publishing his claims in a peer reviewed journal. Instead I think he has
settled for maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever time remains in his life.

I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; he is arrogant, self deluded, and
insults posters to say nothing of those such as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their lives
thinking deeply about things and carefully developing their ideas. It may seem Wrong that PO could
live his life casually insulting such people, and then die without getting any come-uppance; it's
just ... not ... fair !!! :)

I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters. People cannot change PO into
something that he isn't. When he dies, his mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will
just carries on. No harm done...


Mike.

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

T24gOC8xNi8yMDI0IDI6MTEgUE0sIE1pa2UgVGVycnkgd3JvdGU6DQo+IE9uIDE2LzA4LzIw MjQgMDc6NTcsIEZyZWQuIFp3YXJ0cyB3cm90ZToNCiAgICAgICAgPEJJRyBTTklQPg0KPj4g SXQgaXMgY2xlYXIgdGhhdCBvbGNvdHQgZG9lcyBub3QgcmVhbGx5IHJlYWQgd2hhdCBJIHdy aXRlLiAoT3IgaXMgdmVyeSANCj4+IHNob3J0IG9mIG1lbW9yeS4pDQo+PiBJIG5ldmVyIHNh aWQgc3VjaCBhIHRoaW5nLg0KPj4gSSByZXBlYXRlZGx5IHRvbGQgdGhhdCB0aGUgc2ltdWxh dGluZyBISEggYWJvcnRlZCB3aGVuIHRoZSBzaW11bGF0ZWQgDQo+PiBISEggaGFkIG9ubHkg b25lIGN5Y2xlIHRvIGdvLiBJIG5ldmVyIHNhaWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgc2ltdWxhdGVkIEhISCAN Cj4+IHJlYWNoZWQgaXQgYWJvcnQgYW5kIGhhbHRlZC4NCj4+IEluIGZhY3QsIEkgc2FpZCB0 aGF0IHRoZSBmYWN0IHRoYXQgdGhlIHNpbXVsYXRpb24gZmFpbHMgdG8gcmVhY2ggdGhlIA0K Pj4gYWJvcnQgYW5kIGhhbHQgb2YgdGhlIHNpbXVsYXRlZCBISEggcHJvdmVzIHRoYXQgdGhl IHNpbXVsYXRpb24gaXMgDQo+PiBpbmNvbXBsZXRlIGFuZCBpbmNvcnJlY3QsIGJlY2F1c2Ug YSBjb21wbGV0ZSBzaW11bGF0aW9uIChzdWNoIGFzIGJ5IA0KPj4gSEhIMSkgc2hvd3MgdGhh dCB0aGUgc2ltdWxhdGVkIEhISCB3b3VsZCBhYm9ydCBhbmQgaGFsdC4NCj4+DQo+PiBJdCBu b3cgYmVjb21lcyBjbGVhciB0aGF0IHlvdSBlaXRoZXIgbmV2ZXIgdW5kZXJzdG9vZCB3aGF0 IEkgc2FpZCwgb3IgDQo+PiB5b3VyIG1lbW9yeSBpcyBpbmRlZWQgdmVyeSBzaG9ydC4NCj4+ IEdpdmUgaXQgc29tZSB0aW1lIHRvIHRoaW5rIGFib3V0IHdoYXQgSSBzYXksIHRyeSB0byBl c2NhcGUgZnJvbSANCj4+IHJlYnV0dGFsIG1vZGUsIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgaWdub3JpbmcgaXQg aW1tZWRpYXRlbHkuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGF0J3MgYWxsIGNvcnJlY3QuwqAgR29pbmcgZnVydGhl ciBJJ2xsIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCBQTyByZWFsbHkgZG9lc24ndCANCj4gInVuZGVyc3RhbmQi IC9hbnl0aGluZy8gd2l0aCBhbiBhYnN0cmFjdCAvIGxvZ2ljYWwgLyBtYXRoZW1hdGljYWwg DQo+IGNvbnRlbnQuwqAgSGUgY2FuJ3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCBkZWZpbml0aW9ucyBvciB0aGVp ciByb2xlIGluIHByb29mcywgb3IgDQo+IHRoZSByb2xlIG9mIHByb29mcyBpbiBlc3RhYmxp c2hpbmcga25vd2xlZGdlLsKgIEknbSBub3Qga2lkZGluZyBvciBiZWluZyANCj4gcnVkZSBv ciBhbnl0aGluZyBsaWtlIHRoYXQgLSBpdCdzIHNpbXBseSB0aGUgd2F5IGhpcyBicmFpbiB3 b3Jrcy7CoCAqT2YgDQo+IGNvdXJzZSogUE8gZG9lcyBub3QgInJlYWxseSByZWFkIHdoYXQg eW91IHdyaXRlIi7CoCBTdXJlbHkgeW91IG11c3QgaGF2ZSANCj4gYXQgbGVhc3Qgc3VzcGVj dGVkIHRoaXMgZm9yIGEgbG9uZyB0aW1lPyHCoCBbSSBkb24ndCBub3RpY2UgYW55IHByb2Js ZW0gDQo+IHdpdGggUE8ncyBtZW1vcnkuXQ0KPiANCj4gRm9yIFBPIGl0J3MgYWxsIGp1c3Qg InRoaW5ncyBoZSB0aGlua3MgYXJlIHRydWUiLCBha2EgaGlzIGludHVpdGlvbnMuICANCj4g VGhvc2Ugd2lsbCBub3QgY2hhbmdlIGFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IG9mIGFueSByZWFzb25pbmcgcHJl c2VudGVkIHRvIGhpbSwgDQo+IGJlY2F1c2UsIGxpdGVyYWxseSwgUE8gZG9lcyBub3QgcmVn aXN0ZXIgYW55IHJlYXNvbmluZyBnb2luZyBvbi7CoCBJdCdzIA0KPiBpbXBvc3NpYmxlIHRv IGZ1bGx5IGltYWdpbmUgIndoYXQgaXQncyBsaWtlIHRvIGJlIFBPIiwganVzdCBsaWtlIGEg DQo+IHNlZWluZyBwZXJzb24gY2FuJ3QgL3RydWx5LyBpbWFnaW5lIGhvdyBzYXkgYSBibGlu ZCBwZXJzb24gb3IgDQo+IHNjaGl6b3BocmVuaWMgcGVyY2VpdmVzIHRoZSB3b3JsZCAtIGJ1 dCBhcyBhIHN0YXJ0ZXIsIGltYWdpbmUgeW91J3JlIA0KPiBoZWFyaW5nIGEgZm9yZWlnbiBs YW5ndWFnZSBhbmQgZG9uJ3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB0aGUgd29yZHMgYmVpbmcgdXNlZC4gIA0K PiBPSywgeW91IHJlY29nbmlzZSB0aGUgb2RkIHdvcmQgdGhyb3VnaCByZXBldGl0aW9uLCBh bmQgb3ZlciB0aW1lIHlvdSd2ZSANCj4gZm9ybWVkIHlvdXIgb3duIChpbmNvbXBsZXRlIGFu ZCBvZnRlbiBpbmNvcnJlY3QpIG9waW5pb25zIG9mICJ3aGF0IHRoZSANCj4gd29yZHMgYXJl IHRvIGRvIHdpdGgiLCBidXQgdGhhdCdzIGFsbC7CoCBZb3UgY29udmluY2UgeW91cnNlbGYg eW91IA0KPiB1bmRlcnN0YW5kICJ3aGF0IHRoZSB3b3JkcyBhY3R1YWxseSBtZWFuIiBidXQg dGhhdCdzIGEgZGVsdXNpb24hwqAgV2hlbiANCj4gcGVvcGxlIHJlcGx5IHRvIHdoYXQgeW91 IHNheSwgeW91IGRvbid0ICJ1bmRlcnN0YW5kIiB3aGF0IHRoZXkncmUgcmVhbGx5IA0KPiBz YXlpbmcuwqAgb2ssIHlvdSByZWNvZ25pc2Ugc29tZSBvZiB0aGUga2V5d29yZHMsIGFuZCBj YW4gdGVsbCBmcm9tIHRoZSANCj4gdG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgcmVwbHkgd2hldGhlciB0aGV5IGFy ZSBhZ3JlZWluZyBvciBkaXNhZ3JlZWluZyB3aXRoIHlvdSwgYnV0IA0KPiB0aGF0J3MgYWJv dXQgaXQhwqAgWW91IHJlY29nbmlzZSBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBjb21tb24gb2JqZWN0aW9ucyBw ZW9wbGUgDQo+IGJyaW5nIHVwLCBhbmQgb3ZlciB0aW1lIHlvdSd2ZSBkZXZlbG9wZWQgc3Rv Y2sgcGhyYXNlcyB0byByZXBlYXQgYmFjayB0byANCj4gdGhlbSwgYnV0IHRoZXJlJ3Mgbm8g ImxvZ2ljIiBpbnZvbHZlZC7CoCBZb3UgZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgYWxsIHRoaXMgaXMgDQo+IHN0 cmFuZ2UsIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQncyBhbHdheXMgYmVlbiB0aGlzIHdheSBmb3IgeW91LsKgIFlv dSBkb24ndCBldmVuIA0KPiByZWFsaXNlIGl0J3MgZGlmZmVyZW50IGZvciBldmVyeWJvZHkg ZWxzZS4uLg0KPiANCj4gVGhlIGFuYWxvZ3kgaXNuJ3QgcGVyZmVjdCwgYmVjYXVzZSBhcyBh IGZvcmVpZ25lciB5b3Ugd291bGQgc3RpbGwgYmUgDQo+IGZ1bGx5IGNhcGFibGUgb2YgcmVh c29uaW5nLCBhbmQgeW91IHdvdWxkIHJlYWxpc2UgdGhhdCB5b3UgZG9uJ3QgDQo+IHVuZGVy c3RhbmQga2V5IHBvaW50cyBhbmQgc28gb24uwqAgSW5zdGVhZCBvZiBhIGxhY2sgb2YgbGFu Z3VhZ2UgDQo+IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcsIHRoZSBhbmFsb2d5IHNob3VsZCB1c2UgYSAibGFj ayBvZiByZWFzb25pbmcgYWJpbGl0eSIgDQo+IHRoZW1lIG9yIHNvbWV0aGluZyBlcXVhbGx5 IGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsLCBidXQgdGhhdCdzIG5vdCBhIGNvbW1vbiANCj4gc2l0dWF0aW9uIHBl b3BsZSBjYW4gYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSAtIHByYWN0aWNhbGx5IC9ldmVyeWJvZHkvIGluIG91ciBs aXZlcyANCj4gdGhhdCB3ZSBpbnRlcmFjdCB3aXRoIGhhcyBhbiBhYmlsaXR5IHRvIHJlYXNv biBjb3JyZWN0bHksIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgDQo+IGRlZmluaXRpb25zLCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdo YXQgcGVvcGxlIGFyZSBzYXlpbmcgdG8gdGhlbSBhbmQgd2hhdCB0aGVpciANCj4gYmVsaWVm cyBhcmUgZXRjLi7CoCBCdXQgUE8gaXMgcmVhbGx5IG5vdCBsaWtlIGFsbCB0aG9zZSBub3Jt YWwgcGVvcGxlIQ0KPiANCj4gSWYgeW91IGV4cGVjdCB0byBzdWRkZW5seSBjb252aW5jZSBQ TyBoZSBpcyB3cm9uZywgdGhhdCB3b24ndCBoYXBwZW4uICANCj4gSG93IHRvIGRpc3BlbGwg YSBmYWxzZSBpbnR1aXRpb24gd2l0aG91dCB1c2luZyByZWFzb25pbmc/wqAgSWYgeW91IGV4 cGVjdCANCj4gdG8gcHJvdmUgdGhhdCBQTyBpcyB3cm9uZywgaGV5IHRoYXQncyBlYXN5IGVu b3VnaCwgYnV0IG5vdCByZWFsbHkgDQo+IG5lZWRlZCHCoCBOb2JvZHkgd2l0aCBhbnkgdW5k ZXJzdGFuZGluZyBvZiBIUCBwcm9ibGVtIGlzIHRha2VuIGluIGJ5IFBPJ3MgDQo+IGR1ZmZl ciBzcGVhay7CoCBFdmVudHVhbGx5IG1vc3QgcG9zdGVycyBqdXN0IGdldCBib3JlZCByZXBl YXRpbmcgdGhlIHNhbWUgDQo+IGV4cGxhbmF0aW9ucyB0byBoaW0gb3ZlciBhbmQgb3Zlciwg YW5kIHVtbSBzdG9wIGRvaW5nIGl0LsKgIFtJdCBjYW4gdGFrZSANCj4geWVhcnMgdG8gZ2V0 IHRvdGhhdCBwb2ludC4uLl0NCj4gDQo+IFBlcmhhcHMgYSBjYXNlIGNvdWxkIGJlIG1hZGUg dGhhdCBjb250aW51YWxseSBkZW1hbmRpbmcgUE8gInByb3ZlcyIgaGlzIA0KPiBjbGFpbXMg aXMgYSBmb3JtIG9mICJjcnVlbCBhbmQgdW51c3VhbCBwdW5pc2htZW50IiBhcyBldmVyeWJv ZHkgaGVyZSBieSANCj4gbm93IG11c3QgYXBwcmVjaWF0ZSB0aGF0J3MgZmFyIGJleW9uZCBo aXMgaW50ZWxsZWN0dWFsIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcy7CoCBPciANCj4gYXMgYSB3b3JzdCBjYXNl LCBwZXJoYXBzIGl0IG1pZ2h0IGJlIGNvbXBhcmVkIHdpdGggInRhdW50aW5nIiBhIG1lbnRh bGx5IA0KPiBoYW5kaWNhcHBlZCAob3IgYXQgbGVhc3QgbWVudGFsbHkgaWxsKSBwZXJzb24s IHdoaWNoIGlzIG9idmlvdXNseSBub3QgDQo+IG5pY2UgYXQgYWxsLsKgIEJ1dCBQTyB3aWxs IG5vdCByZWNvZ25pc2UgdGhhdCBoZSBpcyBpbiB0aGF0IHBvc2l0aW9uLCBhbmQgDQo+IHRo ZSAidGF1bnRlcnMiIG9ubHkgc3VzcGVjdCwgcmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gdHJ1bHkgYmVsaWV2ZSwg dGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIGluIA0KPiBmYWN0IHRoZSBzY2VuYXJpby7CoCBTbyBubyBoYXJtIGRv bmUgcGVyaGFwcy4NCj4gDQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgb3RoZXIgcG9zdGVycyBoZXJlIG11c3Qgd29u ZGVyIGFib3V0IHRoaXMgZnJvbSB0aW1lIHRvIHRpbWUsIGJ1dCANCj4gdGhlIHRob3VnaHQg bWFrZXMgdGhlbSB1bmNvbWZvcnRhYmxlIC0gaWYgUE8gcmVhbGx5IC9jYW4ndC8gcmVhc29u IGxpa2UgDQo+IG5vcm1hbCBwZW9wbGUsIHRoZW4gd2hhdCB3b3VsZCBiZSB0aGUgL3BvaW50 LyBpbiBjb25zdGFudGx5IGFyZ3VpbmcgDQo+IFtub3RlOiBhcmd1aW5nLCBub3QgZGViYXRp bmcvZGlzY3Vzc2luZ10gYWxsIHRoaXMgd2l0aCBoaW0gb3ZlciBhbmQgb3ZlciANCj4gYW5k IG92ZXI/wqAgVGhpcyBicmluZ3MgaW50byBxdWVzdGlvbiB0aGVpciBvd24gYmVoYXZpb3Vy Li4uwqAgRWFzaWVyIA0KPiBwZXJoYXBzIHRvIGZhbGwgYmFjayBvbiBsYXp5IHRoaW5raW5n IGFuZCBqdXN0IGNhbGwgaGltIGEgbGlhciwgbGF6eSwgDQo+IHdpbGxmdWxseSBpZ25vcmFu dCBhbmQgc28gb24uDQo+IA0KPiBQZXJoYXBzIHRoZSBraW5kZXN0IGFwcHJvYWNoIHdvdWxk IGp1c3QgYmUgdG8gbGV0IGhpbSBnZXQgb24gd2l0aCBpdD8gIA0KPiBGb3IgUE8sIEkgZmVl bCBoZSBoYXMgYWJhbmRvbmVkIGhpcyBsaWZlIHBsYW4gb2YgcHVibGlzaGluZyBoaXMgY2xh aW1zIA0KPiBpbiBhIHBlZXIgcmV2aWV3ZWQgam91cm5hbC7CoCBJbnN0ZWFkIEkgdGhpbmsg aGUgaGFzIHNldHRsZWQgZm9yIA0KPiBtYWludGFpbmluZy9yZWluZm9yY2luZyBoaXMgZGVs dXNpb25zIG9mIGdlbml1c2hvb2QgZm9yIHdoYXRldmVyIHRpbWUgDQo+IHJlbWFpbnMgaW4g aGlzIGxpZmUuDQo+IA0KPiBJIGtub3cgc29tZSB3aWxsIG5vdCBsaWtlIHRoaXMgYXBwcm9h Y2ggLSBQTyBpcyBub3QgYSBuaWNlIHBlcnNvbjsgaGUgaXMgDQo+IGFycm9nYW50LCBzZWxm IGRlbHVkZWQsIGFuZCBpbnN1bHRzIHBvc3RlcnMgdG8gc2F5IG5vdGhpbmcgb2YgdGhvc2Ug c3VjaCANCj4gYXMgVHVyaW5nL0dvZGVsL1RhcnNraSB3aG8gaGF2ZSBzcGVudCB0aGVpciBs aXZlcyB0aGlua2luZyBkZWVwbHkgYWJvdXQgDQo+IHRoaW5ncyBhbmQgY2FyZWZ1bGx5IGRl dmVsb3BpbmcgdGhlaXIgaWRlYXMuwqAgSXQgbWF5IHNlZW0gV3JvbmcgdGhhdCBQTyANCj4g Y291bGQgbGl2ZSBoaXMgbGlmZSBjYXN1YWxseSBpbnN1bHRpbmcgc3VjaCBwZW9wbGUsIGFu ZCB0aGVuIGRpZSB3aXRob3V0IA0KPiBnZXR0aW5nIGFueSBjb21lLXVwcGFuY2U7IGl0J3Mg anVzdCAuLi4gbm90IC4uLiBmYWlyICEhIcKgIDopDQo+IA0KPiBJIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhh dCwgYnV0IHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhhdCBub25lIG9mIHRoYXQgcmVhbGx5IG1hdHRlcnMuwqAgUGVv cGxlIA0KPiBjYW5ub3QgY2hhbmdlIFBPIGludG8gc29tZXRoaW5nIHRoYXQgaGUgaXNuJ3Qu wqAgV2hlbiBoZSBkaWVzLCBoaXMgDQo+IG1pc3Rha2VzIHdpbGwgYmUgcXVpY2tseSBmb3Jn b3R0ZW4gYW5kIHRoZSB3b3JsZCB3aWxsIGp1c3QgY2FycmllcyBvbi4gIA0KPiBObyBoYXJt IGRvbmUuLi4NCkkgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB2aXJ0dWFsbHkgZXZlcnkgd29yZCB5b3Ugd3JvdGUg YWJvdmUuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgdGhpbmsgDQp0aGVyZSBpcyBhbm90aGVyIGluZ3JlZGllbnQg bWl4ZWQgaW50byBQTyB0aGF0IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgb3Zlcmxvb2tlZDogDQpoZSBpcyBl eHRyYW9yZGluYXJpbHkgbG9uZXNvbWUuIEhlIGlzIG5vdCBhIG5pY2UgcGVyc29uLCBhcyB5 b3UgaGF2ZSANCm9ic2VydmVkLCBhbmQgdGhlIHdheSBoaXMgbWluZCB3b3JrcyBwcmVjbHVk ZXMgcmF0aW9uYWwgYW5kL29yIGZyaWVuZGx5IA0KY29udmVyc2F0aW9uLiBTbyBoZSBoYXMg bm8gZnJpZW5kcyBhbmQgaGUgYm90aCB3YW50cyBodW1hbiBjb250YWN0IChldmVuIA0KZWxl Y3Ryb25pY2FsbHkgLSBob3cgbW9kZXJuKSBhbmQgdG8gcGF5IGJhY2sgdGhvc2Ugd2hvIHNo dW4gaGltIGFuZCANCnRyZWF0IGhpbSBhcyB0aGUgbWVudGFsIGRlZmVjdGl2ZSB0aGF0IGhl IHByb2JhYmx5IGlzLg0KDQpTbyB0aGlzIGlzIGhpcyBzb2NpYWwgbGlmZTsgYWxsIG9mIGl0 LiBJdCBpcyBhbHNvIHRoZSB0b3J0dXJlIGNoYW1iZXIgDQphbmQgaW4gaGlzIG1pbmQgaGUn cyB0aGUgZHVuZ2VvbiBtYXN0ZXIuIEhpcyBtZXRob2Qgb2YgdG9ydHVyaW5nIGFsbCANCm90 aGVycyBpcyBuZXZlciBwcm92aWRpbmcgcG9zaXRpdmUgZmVlZGJhY2sgdG8gdGhvc2Ugd2hv IHdhbnQgdG8gaGVscCANCmltcHJvdmUgaGltLiBCZXNpZGVzIGhpbXNlbGYsIG1vc3Qgb2Yg dGhlIG90aGVyIGxvbmcgdGVybSBwYXJ0aWNpcGFudHMgDQppbiB0aGVzZSBmb3J1bXMgdGhp bmsgb2YgdGhlbXNlbHZlcyBhcyB3aGl0ZSBuaWdodHMuIEFuZCB0aGV5IGFyZSANCnRod2Fy dGVkIGF0IGV2ZXJ5IHR1cm4gYW5kIHRoYXQgbWFrZXMgdGhlbSB0cnkgaGFyZGVyIHNvIFBP IHdpbnMgZXZlcnkgDQplbmNvdW50ZXIgaW4gdGhlIGVuZC4NCg0KUGFydCBvZiB3aGF0IEkn bSBzYXlpbmcgYWJvdmUgaXMgdGhhdCBhbGwgb2YgdXMgd2hvIHBhcnRpY2lwYXRlIGluIHRo aXMgDQpub25zZW5zZSBoYXZlIHNvbWUgbmVlZHMgdGhhdCBmaXQgaW4gdG8gdGhlIHJlcGV0 aXRpb24uIEFuZCB0aG9zZSBuZWVkcyANCm5vdCBvbmx5IGZpdCBpbiBidXQgYWxzbyBzdWNr IHVzIGFsbCBpbi4gSSByZWFsbHkgd2lzaCB0aGF0IFVuZGVyd29vZCANCkR1ZGxleSB3YXMg c3RpbGwgYXJvdW5kIHRvIHdyaXRlIGFub3RoZXIgYm9vayBleHBvc2luZyB0aGUgbXVkZGxl ZCANCnBzeWNob2xvZ3kgb2YgdGhvc2Ugd2hvIGFyZSBkcmF3biB0byB0aGUgZmxhbWUgb2Yg bG9naWNhbCBhbmQgDQptYXRoZW1hdGljYWwgaWRlYXMgd2l0aG91dCBhbnkgcmVhbCB1bmRl cnN0YW5kaW5nLiBQZXJoYXBzIHdlIHNob3VsZCANCmxhYmVsIHRoYXQgd2hvbGUgYmF0Y2gg YXMgIk1hdGggTW90aHMiLg0KLS0gDQpKZWZmIEJhcm5ldHQNCg0K

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

On 16/08/2024 22:10, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 4:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 8/16/2024 2:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

        <BIG SNIP>

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to
go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the
simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete
simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very
short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of
ignoring it immediately.

That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't "understand" /anything/
with an abstract / logical / mathematical content.  He can't understand definitions or their role
in proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being rude or
anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of course* PO does not "really read
what you write".  Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice
any problem with PO's memory.]

For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his intuitions. Those will not change as a
result of any reasoning presented to him, because, literally, PO does not register any reasoning
going on.  It's impossible to fully imagine "what it's like to be PO", just like a seeing person
can't /truly/ imagine how say a blind person or schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a
starter, imagine you're hearing a foreign language and don't understand the words being used. OK,
you recognise the odd word through repetition, and over time you've formed your own (incomplete
and often incorrect) opinions of "what the words are to do with", but that's all.  You convince
yourself you understand "what the words actually mean" but that's a delusion!  When people reply
to what you say, you don't "understand" what they're really saying.  ok, you recognise some of
the keywords, and can tell from the tone of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing
with you, but that's about it!  You recognise some of the common objections people bring up, and
over time you've developed stock phrases to repeat back to them, but there's no "logic"
involved.  You don't think all this is strange, because it's always been this way for you.  You
don't even realise it's different for everybody else...

The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be fully capable of reasoning,
and you would realise that you don't understand key points and so on.  Instead of a lack of
language understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability" theme or something
equally fundamental, but that's not a common situation people can appreciate - practically
/everybody/ in our lives that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, understand
definitions, understand what people are saying to them and what their beliefs are etc..  But PO
is really not like all those normal people!

If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't happen. How to dispell a false
intuition without using reasoning?  If you expect to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy
enough, but not really needed!  Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is taken in by PO's
duffer speak.  Eventually most posters just get bored repeating the same explanations to him over
and over, and umm stop doing it.  [It can take years to get tothat point...]

Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" his claims is a form of
"cruel and unusual punishment" as everybody here by now must appreciate that's far beyond his
intellectual capabilities.  Or as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with "taunting" a
mentally handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, which is obviously not nice at all.  But
PO will not recognise that he is in that position, and the "taunters" only suspect, rather than
truly believe, that this is in fact the scenario.  So no harm done perhaps. >>>
I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, but the thought makes them
uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ reason like normal people, then what would be the /point/ in
constantly arguing [note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this with him over and over and
over?  This brings into question their own behaviour...  Easier perhaps to fall back on lazy
thinking and just call him a liar, lazy, willfully ignorant and so on.

Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with it? For PO, I feel he has
abandoned his life plan of publishing his claims in a peer reviewed journal.  Instead I think he
has settled for maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever time remains in
his life.

I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; he is arrogant, self deluded,
and insults posters to say nothing of those such as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their
lives thinking deeply about things and carefully developing their ideas.  It may seem Wrong that
PO could live his life casually insulting such people, and then die without getting any
come-uppance; it's just ... not ... fair !!!  :)

I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters. People cannot change PO into
something that he isn't.  When he dies, his mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will
just carries on. No harm done...

I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I think there is another ingredient
mixed into PO that should not be overlooked: he is extraordinarily lonesome. He is not a nice
person, as you have observed, and the way his mind works precludes rational and/or friendly
conversation. So he has no friends and he both wants human contact (even electronically - how
modern) and to pay back those who shun him and treat him as the mental defective that he probably is.

So this is his social life; all of it. It is also the torture chamber and in his mind he's the
dungeon master. His method of torturing all others is never providing positive feedback to those
who want to help improve him. Besides himself, most of the other long term participants in these
forums think of themselves as white nights. And they are thwarted at every turn and that makes
them try harder so PO wins every encounter in the end.

Part of what I'm saying above is that all of us who participate in this nonsense have some needs
that fit in to the repetition. And those needs not only fit in but also suck us all in. I really
wish that Underwood Dudley was still around to write another book exposing the muddled psychology
of those who are drawn to the flame of logical and mathematical ideas without any real
understanding. Perhaps we should label that whole batch as "Math Moths".

Thanks for this: (it was very helpful)

On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

...In some formulations, there are specific states
   defined as "halting states" and the machine only
   halts if either the start state is a halt state...

...these and many other definitions all have
   equivalent computing prowess...

You've quoted this twice I think recently in response to something I've written (probably when I
pointed out Joes' counterexample didn't work). I confess to being totally baffled as to:
a) why you thought it was relevant at that point in the thread.
b) why you thought I or anyone else posting here wouldn't already fully understand that.
(And understand it much better than you.)


Mike.

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

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:51:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 1:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.aug.2024 om 04:24 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited >>>>>>>>>>> simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its
caller*

how *HHH* returns

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH
    simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH
aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

You do not understand what we say. I have repeated many times that the
simulated HHH is aborted before it would halt by itself.

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language would never halt by itself.

DDD would halt. HHH doesn't simulate that.

The simulating HHH fails to reach that point, proving an incomplete
simulation.

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
Infinite_Recursion();
OutputString("I never make it here!\n");
}
Unreachable code is unreachable code.

DDD's return is reachable from the simulated HHH's abort.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

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

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 8/16/2024 2:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

       <BIG SNIP>

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to
go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the
simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete
simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very
short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of
ignoring it immediately.

That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't "understand" /anything/
with an abstract / logical / mathematical content.  He can't understand definitions or their role
in proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being rude or
anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of course* PO does not "really read
what you write".  Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice
any problem with PO's memory.]

For PO it's all just "things he thinks are true", aka his intuitions. Those will not change as a
result of any reasoning presented to him, because, literally, PO does not register any reasoning
going on.  It's impossible to fully imagine "what it's like to be PO", just like a seeing person
can't /truly/ imagine how say a blind person or schizophrenic perceives the world - but as a
starter, imagine you're hearing a foreign language and don't understand the words being used. OK,
you recognise the odd word through repetition, and over time you've formed your own (incomplete
and often incorrect) opinions of "what the words are to do with", but that's all.  You convince
yourself you understand "what the words actually mean" but that's a delusion!  When people reply
to what you say, you don't "understand" what they're really saying.  ok, you recognise some of the
keywords, and can tell from the tone of the reply whether they are agreeing or disagreeing with
you, but that's about it!  You recognise some of the common objections people bring up, and over
time you've developed stock phrases to repeat back to them, but there's no "logic" involved.  You
don't think all this is strange, because it's always been this way for you.  You don't even
realise it's different for everybody else...

The analogy isn't perfect, because as a foreigner you would still be fully capable of reasoning,
and you would realise that you don't understand key points and so on.  Instead of a lack of
language understanding, the analogy should use a "lack of reasoning ability" theme or something
equally fundamental, but that's not a common situation people can appreciate - practically
/everybody/ in our lives that we interact with has an ability to reason correctly, understand
definitions, understand what people are saying to them and what their beliefs are etc..  But PO is
really not like all those normal people!

If you expect to suddenly convince PO he is wrong, that won't happen. How to dispell a false
intuition without using reasoning?  If you expect to prove that PO is wrong, hey that's easy
enough, but not really needed!  Nobody with any understanding of HP problem is taken in by PO's
duffer speak.  Eventually most posters just get bored repeating the same explanations to him over
and over, and umm stop doing it.  [It can take years to get tothat point...] >>
Perhaps a case could be made that continually demanding PO "proves" his claims is a form of "cruel
and unusual punishment" as everybody here by now must appreciate that's far beyond his
intellectual capabilities.  Or as a worst case, perhaps it might be compared with "taunting" a
mentally handicapped (or at least mentally ill) person, which is obviously not nice at all.  But
PO will not recognise that he is in that position, and the "taunters" only suspect, rather than
truly believe, that this is in fact the scenario.  So no harm done perhaps. >>
I think other posters here must wonder about this from time to time, but the thought makes them
uncomfortable - if PO really /can't/ reason like normal people, then what would be the /point/ in
constantly arguing [note: arguing, not debating/discussing] all this with him over and over and
over?  This brings into question their own behaviour...  Easier perhaps to fall back on lazy
thinking and just call him a liar, lazy, willfully ignorant and so on.

Perhaps the kindest approach would just be to let him get on with it? For PO, I feel he has
abandoned his life plan of publishing his claims in a peer reviewed journal.  Instead I think he
has settled for maintaining/reinforcing his delusions of geniushood for whatever time remains in
his life.

I know some will not like this approach - PO is not a nice person; he is arrogant, self deluded,
and insults posters to say nothing of those such as Turing/Godel/Tarski who have spent their lives
thinking deeply about things and carefully developing their ideas.  It may seem Wrong that PO
could live his life casually insulting such people, and then die without getting any come-uppance;
it's just ... not ... fair !!!  :)

I understand that, but suggest that none of that really matters.  People cannot change PO into
something that he isn't.  When he dies, his mistakes will be quickly forgotten and the world will
just carries on. No harm done...

I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I think there is another ingredient
mixed into PO that should not be overlooked: he is extraordinarily lonesome. He is not a nice
person, as you have observed, and the way his mind works precludes rational and/or friendly
conversation. So he has no friends and he both wants human contact (even electronically - how
modern) and to pay back those who shun him and treat him as the mental defective that he probably is.

So this is his social life; all of it. It is also the torture chamber and in his mind he's the
dungeon master. His method of torturing all others is never providing positive feedback to those who
want to help improve him. Besides himself, most of the other long term participants in these forums
think of themselves as white nights. And they are thwarted at every turn and that makes them try
harder so PO wins every encounter in the end.

Yes, PO must have a pretty solitary life with little real social contact.

You're right about the "white night" thing. Initially it's reasonable that people encountering PO
think they can help him simply by explaining his mistakes. That was my first thought too. But over
time most people come to realise their continued involvement wrt PO achieves nothing useful
whatsoever. That's not to say there are /no/ good reasons for continued involvement. A case in
point would be Richard, who has said he is of an age where he believes continually correcting PO's
errors is a way of keeping his mind active, and I don't think he expects anything he is doing will
"help" PO, or even help other readers.

For some time at the beginning I continued because I was curious about the details of what PO had
coded (his x86utm program), and I just enjoy mucking about with different code hence my curiosity.
Also I have the white night syndrome I guess - but no illusions that I can help PO. Most of my
early days on Usenet were spent on groups like alt.math.undergrad, where posters were typically
students who were motivated to learn and so listened to what the regulars had to say. Compare that
to sci.math which has almost no students, and instead has dozens of cranks whose aim is definitely
/not/ to learn anything!

If I post here these days it is generally for the possible benefit of others conversing with PO -
e.g. perhaps it seems to me that weeks of time are being wasted /through some simple
miscommunication/ with PO. I've been around longer than the current (relative) newcommers [not as
long as you and Ben I think], so I have more context for what PO is trying to say, even given that
what he is saying is clearly wrong at almost every level. So I might try to short-cut their
coming-up-to-speed process. Or even short-cut their "helping PO" period where they've not yet
realised how hopeless his situation really is. Well, the latter has little impact I admit! People
need to come to their own conclusions and that can take a lot of time. Despite my efforts, I do
also get sucked in to conversing with PO from time to time, I admit it!


Mike.

Part of what I'm saying above is that all of us who participate in this nonsense have some needs
that fit in to the repetition. And those needs not only fit in but also suck us all in. I really
wish that Underwood Dudley was still around to write another book exposing the muddled psychology of
those who are drawn to the flame of logical and mathematical ideas without any real understanding.
Perhaps we should label that whole batch as "Math Moths".

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

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You're right about the "white night" thing.

To Mike and Jeff. PLEASE, it's KNIGHT, not night. ;-) Nights tend not
to be white, even if there's a full moon.

[ .... ]

For some time at the beginning I continued because I was curious about
the details of what PO had coded (his x86utm program), and I just enjoy mucking about with different code hence my curiosity. Also I have the
white night syndrome I guess - but no illusions that I can help PO.
Most of my early days on Usenet were spent on groups like
alt.math.undergrad, where posters were typically students who were
motivated to learn and so listened to what the regulars had to say.
Compare that to sci.math which has almost no students, and instead has
dozens of cranks whose aim is definitely /not/ to learn anything!

Actually, most of the cranks on sci.math posted via Google, and ceased
posting there after Google shut down their NNTP service (thankfully). I
think there's just one left, one who figures in Joes's sig.

[ .... ]

Mike.

Part of what I'm saying above is that all of us who participate in
this nonsense have some needs that fit in to the repetition. And those
needs not only fit in but also suck us all in. I really wish that
Underwood Dudley was still around to write another book exposing the
muddled psychology of those who are drawn to the flame of logical and
mathematical ideas without any real understanding. Perhaps we should
label that whole batch as "Math Moths".

:-)

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

On 17/08/2024 19:02, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You're right about the "white night" thing.

To Mike and Jeff. PLEASE, it's KNIGHT, not night. ;-) Nights tend not
to be white, even if there's a full moon.

Ah, right - and let's not forget Knights in White Satin! :)

[ .... ]

For some time at the beginning I continued because I was curious about
the details of what PO had coded (his x86utm program), and I just enjoy
mucking about with different code hence my curiosity. Also I have the
white night syndrome I guess - but no illusions that I can help PO.
Most of my early days on Usenet were spent on groups like
alt.math.undergrad, where posters were typically students who were
motivated to learn and so listened to what the regulars had to say.
Compare that to sci.math which has almost no students, and instead has
dozens of cranks whose aim is definitely /not/ to learn anything!

Actually, most of the cranks on sci.math posted via Google, and ceased posting there after Google shut down their NNTP service (thankfully). I think there's just one left, one who figures in Joes's sig.

[ .... ]

Mike.

Part of what I'm saying above is that all of us who participate in
this nonsense have some needs that fit in to the repetition. And those
needs not only fit in but also suck us all in. I really wish that
Underwood Dudley was still around to write another book exposing the
muddled psychology of those who are drawn to the flame of logical and
mathematical ideas without any real understanding. Perhaps we should
label that whole batch as "Math Moths".

:-)

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

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 17/08/2024 19:02, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You're right about the "white night" thing.

To Mike and Jeff. PLEASE, it's KNIGHT, not night. ;-) Nights tend not
to be white, even if there's a full moon.

Ah, right - and let's not forget Knights in White Satin! :)

Indeed not: "Never reaching the end." Somehow appropriate for this
newsgroup. ;-) It was in E minor.

[ .... ]

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

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

On 17/08/2024 21:42, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 17/08/2024 19:02, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You're right about the "white night" thing.

To Mike and Jeff. PLEASE, it's KNIGHT, not night. ;-) Nights tend not >>> to be white, even if there's a full moon.

Ah, right - and let's not forget Knights in White Satin! :)

Indeed not: "Never reaching the end." Somehow appropriate for this newsgroup. ;-) It was in E minor.

E minor? In my head I'm hearing E minor --> D major... bet I could work out the whole song (just
basic chords) if I could find my old guitar - not touched for 40 years! :(

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

On 2024-08-17 22:46:16 +0000, wij said:

On Sat, 2024-08-17 at 23:25 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:

On 17/08/2024 21:42, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 17/08/2024 19:02, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 16/08/2024 22:03, Jeff Barnett wrote:

You're right about the "white night" thing.

To Mike and Jeff.  PLEASE, it's KNIGHT, not night.  ;-)  Nights tend not
to be white, even if there's a full moon.

Ah,  right - and let's not forget Knights in White Satin! :)

Indeed not: "Never reaching the end."  Somehow appropriate for this
newsgroup.  ;-)  It was in E minor.

E minor?  In my head I'm hearing E minor --> D major...  bet I could
work out the whole song (just> basic chords) if I could find my old
guitar - not touched for 40 years!  :(

I think OT might be a real programmer. The best I can think is that OT suffered stroke, right brain
damaged.

He has apparently made the programs at https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm except the part that actually emulates. Last update was on 2024-08-08.

--
Mikko

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