[ Malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 7:14 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
If you wanted a truly honest debate about your "proof", you would make
the source code for H available, assuming it actually exists.
What the source-code does and how it does it can be fully proven
entirely on the basis of what has been provided.
That people insist on seeing the source-code only proves that they are
not paying enough attention.
No. Maybe these people want to verify the whole truth, not just the bit
you would like them to see.
The nested simulated calls never return whether or not they are aborted.
The infinitely nested simulations never stop unless they are aborted.
You're clearly not interested in an honest dialogue. You want the
honesty to be on one side only, and it's not your side.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 7:14 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ .... ]
If you wanted a truly honest debate about your "proof", you would make >>>>> the source code for H available, assuming it actually exists.
What the source-code does and how it does it can be fully proven
entirely on the basis of what has been provided.
That people insist on seeing the source-code only proves that they are >>>> not paying enough attention.
No. Maybe these people want to verify the whole truth, not just the bit >>> you would like them to see.
The nested simulated calls never return whether or not they are aborted. >>>> The infinitely nested simulations never stop unless they are aborted.
You're clearly not interested in an honest dialogue. You want the
honesty to be on one side only, and it's not your side.
(1) In other words you don't know the x86 language well enough to see
that the call to H at machine address [00000d0d] with (P,P) parameters
cannot possibly stop running unless H aborts its simulation of P?
(2) Furthermore you don't know the x86 language well enough to see that
even if this simulation is aborted that the P of this aborted simulation
cannot possibly proceed to the final state of [00000d1c] after it has
been aborted?
(3) One more thing that you apparently cannot see is that whether or not
the simulation of P is aborted the simulated P cannot possibly proceed
to the final state of [00000d1c] thus the determination that the input
to H(P,P) never halts is correct?
It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your
smoke and mirrors.
You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as easy
as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force anybody
still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is woefully incomplete.
Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP theorem
and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from your side.
If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even look at it.
Maybe.
I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It
might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The theorem
is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your mistakes.
[ .... ]
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[ Yet more malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]
[ .... ]
It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your
smoke and mirrors.
You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest
dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as
easy as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force
anybody still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is
woefully incomplete.
Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP
theorem and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from
your side. If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even
look at it. Maybe.
I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It
might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The
theorem is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your
mistakes.
If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
rebuttal.
Garbage. They do not stand until they are proved, something beyond your understanding and capability.
You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without
sufficient review simply because you really really believe that I must
be incorrect.
There's no "belief" about it. It's established mathematical proof,
something you fail to understand. You're asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Why should I waste time on that?
If you truly, honestly wanted review, you would post your source code.
If no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) exists this proves that (1)(2)(3)
are correct which entails that H(P,P)==0 is the correct halt status for
the input to H.
Garbage.
You have no interest in honest dialogue.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[ Malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 12:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Yet more malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]
[ .... ]
It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your >>>>> smoke and mirrors.
You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest >>>>> dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as
easy as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force >>>>> anybody still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is >>>>> woefully incomplete.
Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP
theorem and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from >>>>> your side. If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even >>>>> look at it. Maybe.
I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It >>>>> might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The
theorem is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your
mistakes.
If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
rebuttal.
Garbage. They do not stand until they are proved, something beyond your >>> understanding and capability.
No response?
Irrefutable is another word for correct.
It is not. They are different words with different meanings. Hint: in English there are few pairs of words indeed with identical meanings.
You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without >>>> sufficient review simply because you really really believe that I must >>>> be incorrect.
There's no "belief" about it. It's established mathematical proof,
something you fail to understand. You're asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Why >>> should I waste time on that?
If you truly, honestly wanted review, you would post your source code.
No answer? You don't actually have source code for an H, do you?
The following code proves beyond all possible doubt ....
Now come nothing but lies from you. You don't honestly think that dumped object code from ~4 lines of C source can prove _anything_ "beyond all possible doubt", surely? You are just lying.
.... that the pure simulation of P on its input P by H cannot possibly
reach its final state of [00000d1c] whether or not H aborts this
simulation. It seems that you are either in psychological denial or
worse: (the opposite of an honest dialogue).
Until we know exactly what H does, and how, we can't have any honest
dialogue about it.
[ .... ]
Perhaps you never heard the term: "irrefutable" before? It essentially
means the same thing as "correct".
Wrong. It does not.
You have no interest in honest dialogue.
You don't. Have you actually written working source code for H?
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 86:42:46 |
Calls: | 7,778 |
Files: | 12,911 |
Messages: | 5,750,175 |