1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: My most significant progress --- Recursive simulation

    From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 06:54:27 2025
    On 25/08/2025 05:48, olcott wrote:
    On 8/24/2025 11:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 17:19, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    For these cases, we can turn to our second weapon -- emulation.

    You should have quit while you were ahead. Andy makes a good
    point above; if only you were right, nobody would care how you
    got there.


    I comprehend that I am correct about certain things.

    So you claim, but you have yet to persuade anyone else of this.

    The verified truth of this *is* my most significant progress. https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
    FIVE LLM systems all agree because this *is* correct.

    Fooling gullible AIs into yessing you does not constitute a proof.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Mon Aug 25 07:10:25 2025
    On 8/25/25 12:48 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/24/2025 11:55 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 17:19, olcott wrote:
    On 8/24/2025 10:44 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
    On 24/08/2025 14:25, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    [...] I don't see why people are
    beating [PO] up over static data when it's so easy in C to share
    information across functions when you need to.

         I don't see why people are beating him up over anything to do >>>> with his programs, beyond their technical correctness and results.
    We don't need to write [putative] halt deciders as TMs, nor under any
    restrictions as to what features of C [or Algol or ...] may or may
    not be used.  PO would become famous [beyond being the record holder
    for most posts in a career] for any program that actually solved the
    HP, no matter how it did it [short of magic];  and almost as famous
    for establishing that one of the standard proofs was significantly
    in error.


    For these cases, we can turn to our second weapon -- emulation.

    You should have quit while you were ahead. Andy makes a good point
    above; if only you were right, nobody would care how you got there.


    I comprehend that I am correct about certain things.

    But that is just because you are wrong about what you comprehend.


    The verified truth of this *is* my most significant progress. https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
    FIVE LLM systems all agree because this *is* correct.

    and that shows the delusion of your comprehension, you beleive your own
    lies.


    We want to know whether a program halts, so we try it. If it halts,
    then we know the answer.

    And yet DD halts, but your decider claims that it doesn't. Knowing the
    answer ain't much good if it's the wrong answer.

    <snip>




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