On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. Anyway, DDD does
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is impossible because
On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his
position, PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent
new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in
order to somehow justify his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busted intuitions.
My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though
it looks like it does:
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
Right - magical thinking.
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the
multiple levels involved. In his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why
PO does not /realise/ that
he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it.
Somehow PO tries, gets into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond
that of everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the
planet, and my ability to
eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO ever start down this path
of delusions? Not that that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters one iota... :)
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement of POOH, but
it does not matter how
H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But the naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so both ZF and ZFC are used.
Quine's atom is nonsense.
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own father. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of the say the material world works. Imaginary things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the
coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT HALTING* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else?
I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead. >>>>>>> A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were >>>>>> on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens >>>>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they >>>>>> see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be
verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not
verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death. >>
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible because
On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct observations/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting his position, PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent
new magical thinking that only he is smart >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to understand, in order to somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify his
busted intuitions.
My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't halt even though it looks like it does: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state and exits normally.
BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thus meeting the correct non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria if any step of
a computation must be aborted to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its infinite execution
then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it looks like it does).
Right - magical thinking.
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on, due to the multiple levels involved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In his
head they all become a mush of confustions, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mystery here is why PO does not /realise/ that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realise I'm not up to it. Somehow PO tries, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets into
a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this goes beyond that of everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by almost nobody on the planet, and my ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever start down this path of delusions? Not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that that
matters one iota... :)
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement of POOH, but it does not matter how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ZF and ZFC are used.
Quine's atom is nonsense.
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own father. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of the say the material world works. Imaginary things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the
coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else?
I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser >>>>>>>>>> effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do)
maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am >>>>>>> dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were >>>>>> on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens >>>>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they >>>>>> see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be
verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not
verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your
death.
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-16 19:20:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is impossible because
On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his
position, PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent
new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in
order to somehow justify his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busted intuitions.
My favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though
it looks like it does: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
Right - magical thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the
multiple levels involved. In his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why
PO does not / realise/ that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it.
Somehow PO tries, gets into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond
that of everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the
planet, and my ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO ever start down this path
of delusions? Not that that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters one iota... :)
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement of POOH, but
it does not matter how
H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But the naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so both ZF and ZFC are used.
Quine's atom is nonsense.
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own father. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of the say the material world works. Imaginary things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were >>>>>>>> on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens >>>>>>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they >>>>>>>> see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be >>>>>> verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not >>>>>> verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death. >>>>
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
I nave, and again in news:102r9op$29abe$[email protected] .
I have.
On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said:Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations/ contradicting his position, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO can (will) just
Right - magical thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>invent
new magical thinking that only he is smart >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to understand, in order to somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justify his
busted intuitions.
My favorite is that the directly executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D(D) doesn't halt even though it looks like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does:
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state and exits normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thus meeting the correct non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria if any step of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a computation must be aborted to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its infinite execution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if it looks like it does). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going on, due to the multiple levels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved. In his
head they all become a mush of confustions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the mystery here is why PO does not / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realise/ that
he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realise I'm not up to it. Somehow PO tries, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets into
a total muddle, and concludes "My >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of this goes beyond that of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody else, due to
my powers of unrivalved concentration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equalled by almost nobody on the planet, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my ability to
eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever start down this path of delusions? Not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that that
matters one iota... :)
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the implement of POOH, but it does not matter how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both ZF and ZFC are used.
Quine's atom is nonsense.
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> father.
No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible because
of the say the material world works. Imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with >>>>>>>>>>>> lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do)
maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I >>>>>>>>> am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they >>>>>>>> were
on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone
happens
to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything >>>>>>>> they
see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be >>>>>> verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not >>>>>> verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your
death.
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do not
see do not exist.
I ignore most of your messages.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
Similarly a computer hit with a sledge hammer never reaches the final
halt state of the program. But that is no proof of non-halting behaviour.
Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, because of a
premature abort,
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
simulating DDD then
Every first year computer science student would know
that when one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
emulated by HHH, that this emulated DDD cannot possibly
reach its own simulated "return" instruction final halt
state.
HHH(DDD) simulates DDD
that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD
that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD
that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD
until HHH correctly matches the correct non-halting
behavior pattern. Then the outermost HHH aborts its
simulation causing every simulated DDD and HHH to
immediately stop running.
So it seems that this issue has always been a lack
of sufficient technical competence
On 6/18/2025 5:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:
On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
I stop at your first counter-factual statement.I ignore most of your messages.No one has ever even attempted to show the details of how this is
not correct:
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do
not see do not exist.
Yes, that is what I said. Closing your eyes and pretend that they do
not exist. Very childish.
No one here can manage to pay 100% complete attention to one single
point so I reiterate the same single point ever and over until they get
it.
When they try to dodge this point by changing the subject I ignore this
dodge and get back to the original point.
On 6/18/2025 10:53 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:47:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/18/2025 5:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:
On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
I stop at your first counter-factual statement.I ignore most of your messages.No one has ever even attempted to show the details of how this is >>>>>>> not correct:
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do >>>>>> not see do not exist.
Yes, that is what I said. Closing your eyes and pretend that they do
not exist. Very childish.
No one here can manage to pay 100% complete attention to one single
point so I reiterate the same single point ever and over until they get
it.
When they try to dodge this point by changing the subject I ignore this
dodge and get back to the original point.
This behaviour can be fittingly described as pathological.
Yes so you understand that I will not tolerate the
strawman deception change of subject away from the
point.
On 6/18/2025 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-17 13:47:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/17/2025 4:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-16 19:20:17 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set of properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct observations/ contradicting his
position, PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inventMy favorite is that the directly executed D(D) doesn't halt even though
new magical thinking that only he is smart enough to understand, in
order to somehow justify his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busted intuitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it looks like it does: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a final state and exits normally.
BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED,
Thus meeting the correct non-halting criteria if any step of
a computation must be aborted to prevent its infinite execution
then this computation DOES NOT HALT (even if it looks like it does).
Right - magical thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PO simply cannot clearly think through what's going on, due to the
multiple levels involved. In his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head they all become a mush of confustions, but the mystery here is why
PO does not / realise/ that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I soon realise I'm not up to it.
Somehow PO tries, gets into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total muddle, and concludes "My understanding of this goes beyond
that of everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration equalled by almost nobody on the
planet, and my ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate extraneous complexity". How did PO ever start down this path
of delusions? Not that that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters one iota... :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of the implement of POOH, but
it does not matter how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But the naive set theory failed
because it is inconsistent. However, ZF excludes some sets that some
people want to consider, e.g., the universal set, Quine's atom. There is
no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom of choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, so both ZF and ZFC are used.
Quine's atom is nonsense.
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume to exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own father.
No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father is impossible because
of the say the material world works. Imaginary things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to imagine, though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" mean. Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if they were
on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone happens >>>>>>>>>> to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate anything they >>>>>>>>>> see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that cannot be >>>>>>>> verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but not >>>>>>>> verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before your death.
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
simulated "return" statement final halt state.
I nave, and again in news:102r9op$29abe$[email protected] .
I have.
My attempt was successful but yours failed.
Usenet Article Lookup: http://al.howardknight.net/ <102r9op$29abe$[email protected]>
https://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C102r9op%2429abe%241%40dont-email.me%3E
*It is best to refer to your prior comment this way*
On 6/17/2025 3:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
I have. I have shown that there is a simulating termination
analyser that has the name HHH and that simulates until it
finds either a call to HHH or termination. If it finds HHH
it continues simulation after the call. If it finds a return
from the input runction it returns 1. Your "any simulating
termination analyzer HHH" does not exclude my HHH. Therefore
your claim is false.
*No matter what it is a verified fact that*
(a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH
(b) DD correctly simulated by HHH
(c) The directly executed DDD
(d) The directly executed DD
(e) The directly executed HHH(DDD)
(e) The directly executed HHH(DD)
*NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS HHH ABORTS THE SIMULATION OF ITS INPUT*
On 6/18/2025 5:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:
On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said:I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:One can, much like you can imagine the coherent set >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of properties of
On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quine's atom is nonsense.On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Terry wrote:
On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations/ contradicting his position, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent
Right - magical thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>new magical thinking that only he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to understand, in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow justify his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busted intuitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My favorite is that the directly executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D(D) doesn't halt even though it looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like it does:
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state and exits normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thus meeting the correct non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria if any step of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a computation must be aborted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent its infinite execution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > then this computation DOES NOT HALT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even if it looks like it does). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PO simply cannot clearly think through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's going on, due to the multiple levels >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved. In his
head they all become a mush of confustions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the mystery here is why PO does not / >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realise/ that
he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon realise I'm not up to it. Somehow PO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tries, gets into
a total muddle, and concludes "My >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of this goes beyond that of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equalled by almost nobody on the planet, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my ability to
eliminate extraneous complexity". How did >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO ever start down this path of delusions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not that that
matters one iota... :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the implement of POOH, but it does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how
H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem (no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical connection)
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
To a large extent it is. Both are intended to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe those sets that
were tought to be usefult to think about. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the naive set theory failed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is inconsistent. However, ZF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes some sets that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people want to consider, e.g., the universal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, Quine's atom. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no agreement whether do not satisfy the axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of choice and its various
consequences should be included or excluded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so both ZF and ZFC are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to exist or not to exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urelement#Quine_atoms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same as every person that is their own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> father.
No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is impossible because
of the say the material world works. Imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine, though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean. Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it can't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) >>>>>>>>>>>> maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I >>>>>>>>>>> am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if >>>>>>>>>> they were
on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone >>>>>>>>>> happens
to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate
anything they
see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that
cannot be
verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts but >>>>>>>> not
verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before
your death.
Instead of any honest review people are so sure that
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying.
You are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that
observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of
that observation for those potential readers whom the error may
be less obvious.
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do
not see do not exist.
I ignore most of your messages.
Yes, that is what I said. Closing your eyes and pretend that they do
not exist. Very childish.
I stop at your first counter-factual statement.
No one here can manage to pay 100% complete attention
to one single point so I reiterate the same single
point ever and over until they get it.
When they try to dodge this point by changing the
subject I ignore this dodge and get back to the
original point.
On 6/19/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 18.jun.2025 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
On 6/18/2025 5:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:04 schreef olcott:
On 6/17/2025 4:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 16.jun.2025 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 15:40:59 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:43:13 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/14/2025 6:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:36:34 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:19:58 +0000, olcott said:I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am dead.
On 6/12/2025 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:20:39 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 16:51:49 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I USE CUT-AND-PASTE MAKING SURE THAT
On 6/10/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-08 05:38:26 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/8/2025 12:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-07 13:51:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/7/2025 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-06 16:17:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>One can, much like you can imagine the coherent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set of properties of
On 6/6/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-04 15:59:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 6/4/2025 2:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 20:00:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it is not. It is a set that one can assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to exist or not to exist.
Quine's atom is nonsense. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 6/3/2025 12:59 PM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2025-06-03 at 16:38 +0100, Mike >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Terry wrote:To a large extent it is. Both are intended >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to describe those sets that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were tought to be usefult to think about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the naive set theory failed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is inconsistent. However, ZF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> excludes some sets that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people want to consider, e.g., the universal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, Quine's atom. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no agreement whether do not satisfy the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom of choice and its various >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequences should be included or excluded, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so both ZF and ZFC are used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Likewise ZFC was not about what is now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called naive set theory. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 03/06/2025 13:45, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2025 10:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if presented with /direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations/ contradicting his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position, PO can (will) just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invent
Right - magical thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>new magical thinking that only he is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> smart enough to understand, in order to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow justify his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> busted intuitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My favorite is that the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed D(D) doesn't halt even though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it looks like it does: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/24 19:18, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The directly executed D(D) reaches a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state and exits normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > BECAUSE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE SAME >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> COMPUTATION HAS BEEN ABORTED, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Thus meeting the correct non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria if any step of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > a computation must be aborted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent its infinite execution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > then this computation DOES NOT HALT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even if it looks like it does). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PO simply cannot clearly think through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's going on, due to the multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels involved. In his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head they all become a mush of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confustions, but the mystery here is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO does not / realise/ that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he can't think his way through it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I try something that's beyond me, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon realise I'm not up to it. Somehow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO tries, gets into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a total muddle, and concludes "My >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of this goes beyond that of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody else, due to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my powers of unrivalved concentration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equalled by almost nobody on the planet, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and my ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eliminate extraneous complexity". How >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did PO ever start down this path of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delusions? Not that that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters one iota... :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mike.
People seem to keep addressing the logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the implement of POOH, but it does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter how
H or D are implemented, because: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. POOH is not about the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (no logical connection) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Urelement#Quine_atoms
It is the same as every person that is their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own father.
No, it is not the same. Being of ones own father >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is impossible because
of the say the material world works. Imaginary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things like sets can be
imagined to work wichever way one wants to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagine, though a consitent
imagination is more useful.
If that was true then one could imagine the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coherent set of properties of a square circle. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
an impossible decider.
*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT HALTING*
Depends on what exactly your "can" and "possibly" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean. Anyway, DDD does
reach its final state, so its wrong to say that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't.
Why do people always have to be damned liars and change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my words and then dishonestly apply their rebuttal to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these changed words.
If you don't tell why you do so why would anyone else? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
MY WORDS ARE PERFECTLY UNCHANGED.
Putting them to a web page would achieve the same with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lesser effort.
A web-page is not a permanent archive.
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
A web-page will not work for this.
It is unlikely that anyone would read your postings even if >>>>>>>>>>>> they were
on some web page or a paper or a stone wall. Even if someone >>>>>>>>>>>> happens
to see some of your writings nobody will ever validate >>>>>>>>>>>> anything they
see there.
Everything that I said is a verified fact.
You have said much that have no factual content. Facts that >>>>>>>>>> cannot be
verified earlier that 50 years after your death may be facts >>>>>>>>>> but not
verified facts.
The facts can be easily verified right now if people
gave me an actual honest review.
Nothing about 50 years after your death can be verified before >>>>>>>> your death.
Instead of any honest review people are so sure thatYou are right. At least some of your errors are so obvious that >>>>>>>> observing them takes much less time than formulating a report of >>>>>>>> that observation for those potential readers whom the error may >>>>>>>> be less obvious.
I must be wrong that they spent 99% of their concentration
on rebuttal and less than 1% on understanding what I am saying. >>>>>>>>
No one has ever even attempted to show the details
of how this is not correct:
Very childish: closing your eyes and pretending things that you do >>>>>> not see do not exist.
I ignore most of your messages.
Yes, that is what I said. Closing your eyes and pretend that they do
not exist. Very childish.
I stop at your first counter-factual statement.
Because you could not find evidence for your claim. So, you close your
eyes and pretend without evidence that the are counter factual. Very
childish.
No one here can manage to pay 100% complete attention
to one single point so I reiterate the same single
point ever and over until they get it.
We did, but you preferred to ignore them. Closing your eyes and
pretend that our arguments do not exist. Very childish.
When they try to dodge this point by changing the
subject I ignore this dodge and get back to the
original point.
You don't understand the corrections pointed out to you,
All of these "corrections" have been counter-factual.
I point out exactly how they are counter-factual
and my reviewers always ignore this and repeat their
counter-factual rebuttal.
The words 'correctly simulated' makes this a vacuous statement, becauseso you close your eyes by saying that they change the subject andMy claim is that each of the above functions correctly
pretend that they do not exist. Very childish.
simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly
exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.
Can you affirm or correctly refute this?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:55:23 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,104 |