On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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>
I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I thinkIt 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...
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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>
I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I thinkIt 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...
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Which is just a repeating of the lies that have been disproven,
showing that you don't understand the words you say,
The input DDD can't be just those bytes, or it is just a category error.
You continue to change the exact words that I actually said
as your basis of rebuttal.
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
On 8/17/2024 11:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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>
I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, IIt 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...
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you
are just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>> stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>
Which is just a repeating of the lies that have been disproven,
showing that you don't understand the words you say,
The input DDD can't be just those bytes, or it is just a category
error.
You continue to change the exact words that I actually said
as your basis of rebuttal.
But your exact words are just meaningless drivel, based on the idea
that you are allowed to redefine words to mean something different
than what they mean.
Not when you have consistently failed to show the details
of this execution trace when challenged to do so for three
years:
DDD emulated by HHH according the semantics of the x86
language that does stop without being aborted by HHH.
On 8/17/2024 12:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you
are just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
Nope, again, you don't understand what Ben is saying, because you
don't actually understand what you are saying.
Ben is saying that no D will halt if the H it is calling isn't defined
to abort its simulation.
*More than that is is agreeing that this criteria has been met*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
On 8/17/2024 12:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 12:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you
are just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted....
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
Nope, again, you don't understand what Ben is saying, because you
don't actually understand what you are saying.
Ben is saying that no D will halt if the H it is calling isn't
defined to abort its simulation.
*More than that is is agreeing that this criteria has been met*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
Nope, as explained, Professor Sipser is talking about programs that
have program sas inputs and the correct determination of what the
program that the input will do.
If you want to get technical professor Sipser was never
about about programs he was only talking about computable
functions.
In any case Ben did agree that my criteria has been met
and there is no way to deny this that is not a lie.
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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>
I agree with virtually every word you wrote above. However, I thinkIt 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...
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Which is just a repeating of the lies that have been disproven, showing
that you don't understand the words you say,
The input DDD can't be just those bytes, or it is just a category error.
On 8/17/2024 12:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
Nope, again, you don't understand what Ben is saying, because you don't
actually understand what you are saying.
Ben is saying that no D will halt if the H it is calling isn't defined
to abort its simulation.
*More than that is is agreeing that this criteria has been met*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
On 8/18/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 16:33:05 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
Which is just a repeating of the lies that have been disproven,
showing that you don't understand the words you say,
The input DDD can't be just those bytes, or it is just a category error.
One problem in these discussion is that the term "input" has no formal
definition and its informal meaning is vague, like informal meanings
usually are.
The input to HHH is its parameter of the machine address of
DDD in the shared memory space of Halt7.obj loaded into memory. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
On 8/18/2024 4:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 17:09:54 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/17/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
Ben said that my criteria has been met that cannot
possibly be correctly interpreted to mean that my
criteria has not been met.
What Ben said is just an opinion. An opinion does not prove anything.
Ben understood the tautology that I prove in my other thread.
[Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth ---V2]
On 8/18/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-17 16:33:05 +0000, Richard Damon said:
On 8/17/24 12:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/17/2024 11:17 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
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,
*Yet you persistently fail to agree with Ben on this*
Because you just don't understand what Ben said here, because you are
just too stupid.
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H...
(it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
were not halted. That much is a truism.
*This is a simpler version that*
*defines correctly simulated in*
*a way that has no correct rebuttal*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>
Which is just a repeating of the lies that have been disproven, showing
that you don't understand the words you say,
The input DDD can't be just those bytes, or it is just a category error.
One problem in these discussion is that the term "input" has no formal
definition and its informal meaning is vague, like informal meanings
usually are.
The input to HHH is its parameter of the machine address of
DDD in the shared memory space of Halt7.obj loaded into memory. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 170:32:43 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,559 |