↑ title ↑

On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
> ↑ title ↑
PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up substituting his own more
concrete versions which often completely miss crucial points. TM --> C program on x86; computation
--> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets to last step; truth -->
provability; (mathematical) function --> step by step process, and so on. Where he is aware of
this, PO calls it "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!

Quite often he invents his own phrases to explain his intuitions, but because they are not based in
logic and he doesn't understand the key definitions and concepts in a field, his phrases are often
quite incoherent! [Incoherent: as in not making sense from a logical perspective, and therefore not
actually definable in any rigorous fashion /especially/ by PO who really wouldn't a clue where to
start. I'm sure PO would not even recognise what you are expecting of him.]

"..correctly simulated *by H*" is incoherent. And ignore the "by H" at your peril! So it is
obviously good that you demand clarification - trying to discuss it with him without clarification
is surely a recipe for much wasted time!

Yet there is also no point in asking him to explain, because he won't even understand your request,
and he's incapable of rigorously defining anything. He will instead just give you unclear examples,
or reword the phrase using alternative incoherent phrasing. So trying to get PO to explain this
coherently is surely a recipe for much wasted time! :)

Anyway, Richard frequently accuses PO of lying, but I'd say lying [/dishonesty] requires deliberate
intent to deceive on PO's part, and I don't see that (generally). It's just that he is /incapable/
of arguing logically, and I suspect he's quite unaware of that because he recognises nothing
contrary to that in his world - no distinction e.g. between his own "repeating his intuitions over
and over using slightly different words" and your "logical chain of reasoning": to PO they are both
the same.

So it's just the way he is, not really "dishonest" as such, I'd say.

Other incoherencies:
- pathelogical self reference
- [TM's must] compute their answer /only from their inputs, not from non-inputs/
But I couldn't recommend trying to get PO to clarify them... (or even worse: arguing with him about
them in the absence of clarification).

Regards,
Mike.

On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>> ↑ title ↑
> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely miss
> crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation --> simulation;
> halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets to last step;
> truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step by step process,
> and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it "eliminating all
> extraneous complexity"!
>

Within the definition of the semantics C programming language
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach line 06 of D.

Everyone believes against the facts that D does not specify
recursive simulation to H.

They believe that the simulated H(D,D) returns a value to the
simulated H even though this is impossible.

*When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
*possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
*D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*

*When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
*possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
*D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*

*When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
*possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
*D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);

*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

*Simulation invariant*
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

> Quite often he invents his own phrases to explain his intuitions, but
> because they are not based in logic and he doesn't understand the key
> definitions and concepts in a field, his phrases are often quite
> incoherent!  [Incoherent: as in not making sense from a logical
> perspective, and therefore not actually definable in any rigorous
> fashion /especially/ by PO who really wouldn't a clue where to start.
> I'm sure PO would not even recognise what you are expecting of him.]
>
> "..correctly simulated *by H*" is incoherent.  And ignore the "by H" at
> your peril!  So it is obviously good that you demand clarification -
> trying to discuss it with him without clarification is surely a recipe
> for much wasted time!
>
> Yet there is also no point in asking him to explain, because he won't
> even understand your request, and he's incapable of rigorously defining
> anything.  He will instead just give you unclear examples, or reword the
> phrase using alternative incoherent phrasing.  So trying to get PO to
> explain this coherently is surely a recipe for much wasted time!  :)
>
> Anyway, Richard frequently accuses PO of lying, but I'd say lying
> [/dishonesty] requires deliberate intent to deceive on PO's part, and I
> don't see that (generally).  It's just that he is /incapable/ of arguing
> logically, and I suspect he's quite unaware of that because he
> recognises nothing contrary to that in his world - no distinction e.g.
> between his own "repeating his intuitions over and over using slightly
> different words" and your "logical chain of reasoning": to PO they are
> both the same.
>
> So it's just the way he is, not really "dishonest" as such, I'd say.
>
> Other incoherencies:
> -  pathelogical self reference
> -  [TM's must] compute their answer /only from their inputs, not from
> non-inputs/
> But I couldn't recommend trying to get PO to clarify them... (or even
> worse: arguing with him about them in the absence of clarification).
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
>

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/17/24 03:01, olcott wrote:
> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>> ↑ title ↑
>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets
>> to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step
>> by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it
>> "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>
>
> Within the definition of the semantics C programming language
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach line 06 of D.
>
> Everyone believes against the facts that D does not specify
> recursive simulation to H.
>
> They believe that the simulated H(D,D) returns a value to the
> simulated H even though this is impossible.
>
> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>
> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>
> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
Do you mean GUR is incorrect? That's insane.
All (maybe, except one) recognize what GUR states is true without question.

On 1/16/2024 2:00 PM, wij wrote:
> On 1/17/24 03:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>>> ↑ title ↑
>>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets
>>> to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step
>>> by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it
>>> "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>>
>>
>> Within the definition of the semantics C programming language
>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach line 06 of D.
>>
>> Everyone believes against the facts that D does not specify
>> recursive simulation to H.
>>
>> They believe that the simulated H(D,D) returns a value to the
>> simulated H even though this is impossible.
>>
>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>
>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>
>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>
>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 02 {
>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> *Execution Trace*
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>
>> *Simulation invariant*
>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
> Do you mean GUR is incorrect? That's insane.
> All (maybe, except one) recognize what GUR states is true without question.
>

https://www.allacronyms.com/GUR
Generally Unintended Rebuttal?

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/17/24 04:08, olcott wrote:
> On 1/16/2024 2:00 PM, wij wrote:
>> On 1/17/24 03:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>>>> ↑ title ↑
>>>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>>>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>>>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>>>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation
>>>> gets to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function
>>>> --> step by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO
>>>> calls it "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Within the definition of the semantics C programming language
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach line 06 of D.
>>>
>>> Everyone believes against the facts that D does not specify
>>> recursive simulation to H.
>>>
>>> They believe that the simulated H(D,D) returns a value to the
>>> simulated H even though this is impossible.
>>>
>>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>>
>>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>>
>>> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
>>> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
>>> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>>>
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> *Execution Trace*
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>
>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>> Do you mean GUR is incorrect? That's insane.
>> All (maybe, except one) recognize what GUR states is true without
>> question.
>>
>
> https://www.allacronyms.com/GUR
> Generally Unintended Rebuttal?
>
>

Incoherent ad hominem attack is no rebuttal.
It proves that you are very incompetent of the topic.

On 1/16/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>> ↑ title ↑
>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets
>> to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step
>> by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it
>> "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>
>
> [the same copy-pasted spam post as everywhere else]

Olcott still hasn't said what "correctly simulated by H" means.

On 1/16/2024 6:00 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/16/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>>> ↑ title ↑
>>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets
>>> to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step
>>> by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it
>>> "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>>
>>
>> [the same copy-pasted spam post as everywhere else]
>
> Olcott still hasn't said what "correctly simulated by H" means.
>

I said it 100 times and you ignored what I said.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/16/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/16/2024 6:00 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/16/24 20:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>>>> ↑ title ↑
>>>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>>>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>>>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>>>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation
>>>> gets to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function
>>>> --> step by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO
>>>> calls it "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>>>
>>>
>>> [the same copy-pasted spam post as everywhere else]
>>
>> Olcott still hasn't said what "correctly simulated by H" means.
>>
>
> I said it 100 times and you ignored what I said.
>

Except what you say can't be right, as your H doesn't do it, only a
hypohetical that is different than the one you are using.

You don't seem to understand that the program needs to be the program,
and not just some idea of what you want the program to be.

On 1/16/24 2:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/16/2024 12:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 16/01/2024 07:50, immibis wrote:
>>> ↑ title ↑
>> PO simply /can't/ properly understand abstract concepts and ends up
>> substituting his own more concrete versions which often completely
>> miss crucial points.  TM --> C program on x86; computation -->
>> simulation; halting --> some specific (maybe partial) simulation gets
>> to last step; truth --> provability; (mathematical) function --> step
>> by step process, and so on.  Where he is aware of this, PO calls it
>> "eliminating all extraneous complexity"!
>>
>
> Within the definition of the semantics C programming language
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach line 06 of D.

And an H that "Correctly Simulates" its input, can never give an answer
for the input D,D, and thus isn't a decider.

>
> Everyone believes against the facts that D does not specify
> recursive simulation to H.

It only "specifies" rcursive simulation if H doesn't have code to break
it. And if H does, then so does D, since D includes H within itself, at
least if you are doing the problem right

>
> They believe that the simulated H(D,D) returns a value to the
> simulated H even though this is impossible.

IT returns a value, because the ACTUAL H you provide, doesn't meet your
claimed specificaiton

>
> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*

Which is just a dishonest dodge, as H doesn't do a "correct simulation
by H".

>
> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*
>

Ansd repeating your error doesn't make it amy better.

> *When I ask them to show how D correctly simulated by H can*
> *possibly receive a value from the H(D,D) that this simulated*
> *D calls they dodge this because they know that they are wrong*

And repeating your errors like a three year old just shows your
inability to do logic.

>
> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)

But since your H DOES abort, you are admitting that the following isn't
actually True.

> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

Right, **IF** H never aborts its simulation.

You just don't understand how logic works, and seem to think that false
statements can be used as the premise of a proof, despite your at other
times instance that logic must be "truth perserving" showing your hypocracy.

>
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

Right, so any H that actually correctly simulates its input, can not
return to D, so such an H also doesn't return from ANY call of H(D,D),
so it fails to be a decider.

>
>> Quite often he invents his own phrases to explain his intuitions, but
>> because they are not based in logic and he doesn't understand the key
>> definitions and concepts in a field, his phrases are often quite
>> incoherent!  [Incoherent: as in not making sense from a logical
>> perspective, and therefore not actually definable in any rigorous
>> fashion /especially/ by PO who really wouldn't a clue where to start.
>> I'm sure PO would not even recognise what you are expecting of him.]
>>
>> "..correctly simulated *by H*" is incoherent.  And ignore the "by H"
>> at your peril!  So it is obviously good that you demand clarification
>> - trying to discuss it with him without clarification is surely a
>> recipe for much wasted time!
>>
>> Yet there is also no point in asking him to explain, because he won't
>> even understand your request, and he's incapable of rigorously
>> defining anything.  He will instead just give you unclear examples, or
>> reword the phrase using alternative incoherent phrasing.  So trying to
>> get PO to explain this coherently is surely a recipe for much wasted
>> time!  :)
>>
>> Anyway, Richard frequently accuses PO of lying, but I'd say lying
>> [/dishonesty] requires deliberate intent to deceive on PO's part, and
>> I don't see that (generally).  It's just that he is /incapable/ of
>> arguing logically, and I suspect he's quite unaware of that because he
>> recognises nothing contrary to that in his world - no distinction e.g.
>> between his own "repeating his intuitions over and over using slightly
>> different words" and your "logical chain of reasoning": to PO they are
>> both the same.
>>
>> So it's just the way he is, not really "dishonest" as such, I'd say.
>>
>> Other incoherencies:
>> -  pathelogical self reference
>> -  [TM's must] compute their answer /only from their inputs, not from
>> non-inputs/
>> But I couldn't recommend trying to get PO to clarify them... (or even
>> worse: arguing with him about them in the absence of clarification).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike.
>>
>