XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
On 2/23/2022 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/23/22 6:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 11:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 9:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/22/2022 6:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/22/22 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/21/2022 10:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/21/22 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/21/2022 10:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 21:22, olcott wrote:
On 2/21/2022 10:01 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-21 20:36, olcott wrote:
On 2/21/2022 9:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2022 9:19 PM, B.H. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
0
Best to put them on ignore.
If you can set your newsreader to delete messages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this in the header that will get rid of them: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46.165.242.75
Umm...
You do realize that that IP address belongs to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aioe.org NNTP server and not to any specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poster, right?
https://ipinfo.io/46.165.242.75
It looks like you are correct.
Of course I'm correct. Unlike you, I don't post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claims unless I am sure of them.
But there is some irony here since someone (I can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember who) already pointed out this error to you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you were claiming the poster in question was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Germany. That's like assuming that someone must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be from Mountain View CA since they use gmail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
André
I always count everything that I have been told as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly false until independently confirmed. That is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how first-principles reasoning works:
First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> First-principles thinking is one of the best ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineer complicated problems and unleash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creative possibility. Sometimes called “reasoning from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first principles,” the idea is to break down >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complicated problems into basic elements and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reassemble them from the ground up.
https://fs.blog/first-principles/
Maybe you should try applying that to some of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'theories', since they are actually wrong.
After all, they don't follow the actual definitions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
FAIL.
It is not that my theories are wrong it is that they do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correspond to conventional wisdom because I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrected the errors in the philosophical underpinnings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this conventional wisdom. People acting like sheep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that I am wrong because they are attached to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional wisdom.
When it comes to actually showing any mistake all they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have is gibberish double talk anchored in the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they simply do not believe me.
It isn't 'Conventional Wisdom', it is that they don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conform to the RULES of the field. They just are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truths, as truths by definition, conform to reality, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a logical field, that includes its rules and definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When it is shown that these rules are inconsistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves then this inconsistency cannot be ignored and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be resolved.
Then show an ACTUAL inconsistency!!
The replies that you are trying to reject are NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Gibberish', they are pointing out that you are BREAKING >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE RULES of the field.
No they are not. You simply do not believe that this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating pattern can be recognized by embedded_H even >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you yourself already acknowledged that it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely repeating pattern.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then embedded_H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
Only if H never aborts.
You never notice that this input never halts whether or not >>>>>>>>>>>> it is aborted because halting is required to reach a final >>>>>>>>>>>> state.
Because you never notice this when it is reiterated
countless times you must either be a liar or have actual >>>>>>>>>>>> brain damage.
And you never notice that the CORRECT behavior DOES reach the >>>>>>>>>>> final state because you give up when your machine aborts it. >>>>>>>>>>
As I have told you at .east fifty times this never occurs: >>>>>>>>>> embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
whether or not embedded_H aborts its simulation.
You either have brain damage or are a liar.
Note, you can't say that embedded_H goes to H^.Qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ by embedded_H cannot possibly reach
⟨Ĥ⟩.qn
Which means that
The simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can't possibly reach ⟨Ĥ⟩.qn because it
is infinitely recursive.
Then H can't have aborted its simulation, so it didn't answer, and
it FAILED.
_Infinite_Loop()
[00000946](01) 55 push ebp
[00000947](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000949](02) ebfe jmp 00000949
[0000094b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000094c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0007) [0000094c]
This doesn't present the pattern you just claim, so you just
committed that fallacy of the Red Herring.
If you can't tell that the above is very obviously an infinite loop
you are far too ignorant to have any chance of providing anything
close to an accurate review of my work.
You keep up that Fallacious And Invalid Logic and some day someone might beleive you.
I NEVER said that it is impossible to detect SOME infinite loops.
I said that H can't correctly detect an infinite loop in H^ and abort
its simulation to report it, because in doing so H breaks the loop so it doesn't exist.
That is freaking nuts.
Just like a compiler that stops compiling when there are compile errors
a halt decider stops simulating when there are infinite execution
errors. You can't be that stupid so you must be a liar.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)