Op 25.aug.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:

On 8/25/2025 1:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 25/08/2025 18:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-08-25, Mike Terry
<news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

On 25/08/2025 17:15, dbush wrote:

On 8/25/2025 12:01 PM, olcott wrote:

It does not change the sequence of instructions
of replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
subsequently running HHH(DD)

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

But that is how PO operates.

PO has some cognitive problem affecting memory, probably dementia.
There are are instances in which he treats years-old rehashed objections >>> as if they were new findings.

Even if he accepted some argument, within a week he will have forgotten
that, like anterograde amnesia. (Like that Bill Cunningham troll in
comp.lang.c; forever asking beginner stuff, never retaining knowledge.)

Maybe, or maybe he never accepted the argument?  I don't believe his
level of comprehension is sufficient to genuinely accept someones
counter-arguments, even if he (temporarily) /seems/ to agree with
something.  And people can certainly explain abstract concepts and
definitions to him, but that's just not how his brain operates.  (I
think there might be some neural "divergence" in his brain wiring.)
So people have explained, but PO hasn't understood and just carries on
with what he knows.

I think iIt's more like he recognises words in posters' arguments, and
uses them to select a closely matching Objection-Be-Gone fly-spray
from his collection.  From time to time he finds an old can at the
back of one of his shelves, and thinks "What did this one do?  Let's
see if it still works!".


Mike.

That everyone besides five LLM systems dishonestly
dodge the point of the behavior of DD correctly
simulated by HHH seems to prove that they are
dishonest, incompetent or both.

DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. HHH simulated only a few
instructions correctly, but failed to simulate DD as a whole.
World class simulators that did not make that error, were able to
simulate DD up to its final halt state.
You keep ignoring the fact that an aborted simulation does not prove non-termination behaviour. When the simulation is aborted, other means
are needed to prove non-termination behaviour. But HHH fails to see that
this finite recursion is not non-termination, because it ignores the conditional branch instructions encountered during the simulation.
To prove that there is non-termination behaviour, HHH should prove that
the alternate branches will never be followed in a continued simulation. Without this proof, the result of HHH is just an incorrect assumption.
You know that, because it has been told many times. You don't know how
to refute it, but you are stuck in your dogmatic view that your dreams
must be true. You don't want to think about it. You ignore it and repeat
old incorrect claims without evidence.

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