Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #34220 > unrolled thread

Done with Olcott.

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Done with Olcott. Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-05-25 16:56 +0000
    Re: Done with Olcott. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-05-25 21:06 +0100
      Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 15:11 -0500
        Re: Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 15:40 -0500
      Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? CORRECTION olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 16:18 -0500
      Re: Done with Olcott. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-05-26 03:33 +0100
        Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 21:43 -0500
          Re: Done with Olcott. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 23:23 -0400
        Re: Done with Olcott. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-05-26 16:42 +0100
          Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 11:31 -0500
            Re: Done with Olcott. Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2021-05-26 09:51 -0700
        Re: Done with Olcott. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 11:21 -0500
          Re: Done with Olcott. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-05-26 13:18 -0700
      Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? (final draft) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 16:25 -0500
    Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 22:02 -0400
      Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 21:57 -0500
        Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-25 23:13 -0400
          Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 22:25 -0500
            Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-26 08:13 -0400
              Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores(Proxy inputs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-26 09:18 -0500
                Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores(Proxy inputs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-05-26 19:29 -0400
    Re: Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V11)(Proxy inputs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 12:15 -0500
    Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-05-25 12:52 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#34220 — Done with Olcott.

In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
analysis.

PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
PO: am saying is incorrect.

"Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.

In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
adds:

PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.

There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".

Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
that very change would render it conventional, and therefore
unpalatable).  As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
conversation thread.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#34228

On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and that
> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
> analysis.
> 
> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere else.
> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then what I
> PO: am saying is incorrect.
> 
> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.

Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis". 
  He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is 
entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order 
to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

> 
> In a pointless followup, ID <Ar-dnTUoNf4VOTf9nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
> adds:
> 
> PO: The whole diagonalization thing is gibberish to me unless it only shows
> PO: that incorrect questions do not have correct answers.
> 
> There is no point in discussing halting (or anything else) with someone
> who thinks diagonalization is gibberish, and acknowledges that he's
> being incorrect according to "conventional analysis".

Talk about "off the diagonal" etc. is too abstract.  "Whoosh...!"  Ditto 
"pure functions", "model of computation", "definition of halting"......

Yes, it really is pointless arguing with someone who misundertands every 
concept he talks about, and everything you talk about, and doesn't 
understand what a proof needs to look like to convince others etc..  May 
as well "argue" with a bot!

Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can judge 
for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any of the 
following, then it's more or less pointless:

a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
     [PO does not base his claims on logical reasoning, and so isn't
     swayed by such.  His claims are just his firmly held intuitions.]

b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
     [Everyone saw the basic problems 6 months ago,  Newcomers are also
     not idiots who believe everything they read on unmoderated
     newsgroups, and if they are perhaps they deserve to be led astray!
     (I get that responders might want to make it clear for the
     record that PO's claims are nonsense, and that be a point.)]

c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims of
     getting his work published, so he will be awarded
     the reputation points he feels he deserves, which will
     convince Doug Lenat that he was wrong to not give PO
     the job he wanted all those years ago, and maybe even to
     belatedly offer him the position even now.  (Surely not, if
     only due to PO's age?)
     [The whole project is a non-starter.  On a scale of 1-100
     in "ability to put together a coherent argument and express it
     to a publishable standard", where say 93 is the level needed to
     have a realistic prospect of being /considered/ by a publisher,
     PO is located on a generous 0.  Even with a few years of intensive
     coaching by comp.theory regulars, the best improvement we might
     hope for is for that to reach a peak of 0.  It's just the
     way PO is...]

Remember, there's no such thing as an "I spent [xxx] time arguing with 
PO and it made NO DIFFERENCE" refund voucher.  [Darn it, where did this 
brand new 25min voucher I've just found come from?  Someone's been in my 
flat - these keep showing up!] :)

> 
> Even if it made sense to follow "unconventional analysis" it would have
> to be rigorously pinned down and subsequently adhered to. (I suspect,
> that very change would render it conventional, and therefore
> unpalatable).  As it stands, the "uncoventional analysis" consists of
> religious-like faith to some consistency doctrine, combined with the
> rhetorical strategy of insisting "I am right" using whatever bit of
> made-up nonsense that vaguely connects the intuition to the current
> conversation thread.

Exactly - just PO's intuitions, untrammelled by inconvenient logical 
analysis.


Mike.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34229 — Is this understanding of diagonalization correct?

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and 
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere 
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then 
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
> 
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis". 
>   He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is 
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order 
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.
> 

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that 
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat 
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat.

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt 
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing 
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a 
key possibility that it utterly ignores.




-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34344 — Re: Is this understanding of diagonalization correct?

On 5/25/2021 3:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" 
>>> and that
>>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>>> analysis.
>>>
>>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from 
>>> somewhere else.
>>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then 
>>> what I
>>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>>
>>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
>>
>> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative 
>> analysis".   He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  
>> The phrase is entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he 
>> employs in order to reassure himself that he's right despite all the 
>> persistent criticisms.
>>
> 
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
>    u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>    if (Input_Halts)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that 
> there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat 
> that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat.
> 
> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt 
> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing 
> to return any value to H_Hat.
> 
> If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a 
> key possibility that it utterly ignores.

In mathematical logic, the diagonal lemma (also known as diagonalization 
lemma, self-reference lemma[1] or fixed point theorem) establishes the 
existence of self-referential sentences in certain formal theories of 
the natural numbers...

The diagonal lemma also requires that there be a systematic way of 
assigning to every formula θ a natural number #(θ) called its Gödel 
number.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma

The key advantage of studying the effects of self-reference in x86 
machine language is that we do not need the enormous extraneous 
complexity of Gödelization, layer upon layer of indirect reference we 
simply pass the machine address of the function to itself.


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34232 — Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? CORRECTION

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and 
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere 
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then 
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
> 
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis". 
>   He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is 
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order 
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that 
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat 
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat 
<CORRECTION>When H_Hat is invoked with its own machine address is 
input.</CORRECTION>

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt 
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing 
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a 
key possibility that it utterly ignores.


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34246

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>
> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
<cut>
> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
<cut>
> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...

I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
or the other.

It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34247

On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
> 
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.
> 
> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
> 


I create my own language to connect the ideas together in my own mind.

The utterly eliminates the problem of boxing myself into any 
conventional misconceptions. Now that my breakthrough is complete I need 
to learn how to translate my insights into the closest conventional 
terminology.

Now that Kaz forced me to finally look at diagonalization in the halting 
problem I find that it is quite simple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

And thus nothing like the horrifically convoluted mess of the diagonal 
lemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma

-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34252

On 5/25/21 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>>
> 
> 
> I create my own language to connect the ideas together in my own mind.
> 
> The utterly eliminates the problem of boxing myself into any
> conventional misconceptions. Now that my breakthrough is complete I need
> to learn how to translate my insights into the closest conventional
> terminology.
> 
> Now that Kaz forced me to finally look at diagonalization in the halting
> problem I find that it is quite simple
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
> 
> And thus nothing like the horrifically convoluted mess of the diagonal
> lemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
> 

YOUR 'Breakthrough' is that by ignoring the actual definitions of a
problem you can create a proof so full of double speak that YOU have
gas-lighted yourself to the point that you don't understand how bad it is.

I Challenge you to try to submit this to any REAL peer review journal,
and at best you might make the April Fools copy of the journal. Maybe
you could get it into JIR. It does sort of match their theme.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34284

On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
> 
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.

Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun 
stops, stop!".  I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your 
description but that's ok.  I quite like doing sudoku and similar 
puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those 
achieve anything useful at the end!

> 
> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...

I've wondered this too.  Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be 
actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks 
definitely wouldn't last long.  In PO's case, he is generally polite, 
just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. 
I don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory 
Christmas drink! :)


Mike.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34288

On 5/26/2021 10:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
> 
> Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun 
> stops, stop!".  I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your 
> description but that's ok.  I quite like doing sudoku and similar 
> puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those 
> achieve anything useful at the end!
> 
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
> 
> I've wondered this too.  Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be 
> actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks 
> definitely wouldn't last long.  In PO's case, he is generally polite, 
> just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. I 
> don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory 
> Christmas drink! :)
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 

The proof that people are simply not understanding what I am saying is 
that nothing that I have said has had any correct rebuttal, except that 
I have used technical terms in ways that are inconsistent with their 
conventional usage.

The notion of transforming an input having the pathological 
self-reference error (PSRE) into an equivalent input not having (PSRE) 
that acts as a proxy halt deciding basis for the original input has not 
yet been evaluated. This notion is the key to understanding that the 
essence of my proof has been right all along.

Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next 
step is to refute this proof directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was 
the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect 
reference of the diagonal lemma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34291

The bandwidth wasted on what may be a cycle detector 
is enormous.  There are so  many other ideas worthy of 
discussion...  PO is unable to halt.  This group is 
not his blog domain.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 12:31:41 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> On 5/26/2021 10:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: 
> > On 26/05/2021 03:33, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can 
> >>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any 
> >>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless: 
> >>> 
> >>> a) Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors. 
> >> <cut> 
> >>> b) Helping others to see PO's mistakes. 
> >> <cut> 
> >>> c) "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ... 
> >> 
> >> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't. For 
> >> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from 
> >> a crank. This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've 
> >> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually 
> >> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their 
> >> enemy. Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way 
> >> or the other. 
> > 
> > Well who could argue with having fun, and as they say "When the fun 
> > stops, stop!". I don't entirely see where the "fun" comes from in your 
> > description but that's ok. I quite like doing sudoku and similar 
> > puzzles (in the Japanese logic puzzle genre) and I couldn't claim those 
> > achieve anything useful at the end! 
> > 
> >> 
> >> It's a strange form of interaction. I often wonder what it would be 
> >> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person... 
> > 
> > I've wondered this too. Some posters are posting it seems mainly to be 
> > actively rude e.g. Nam, Julio from sci.logic, and those drinks 
> > definitely wouldn't last long. In PO's case, he is generally polite, 
> > just thoroughly deluded and consequently annoyingly arrogant at times. I 
> > don't know... nobody has ever invited him to the annual comp.theory 
> > Christmas drink! :) 
> > 
> > 
> > Mike. 
> >
> The proof that people are simply not understanding what I am saying is 
> that nothing that I have said has had any correct rebuttal, except that 
> I have used technical terms in ways that are inconsistent with their 
> conventional usage. 
> 
> The notion of transforming an input having the pathological 
> self-reference error (PSRE) into an equivalent input not having (PSRE) 
> that acts as a proxy halt deciding basis for the original input has not 
> yet been evaluated. This notion is the key to understanding that the 
> essence of my proof has been right all along.
> Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next 
> step is to refute this proof directly. 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA 
> 
> I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was 
> the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect 
> reference of the diagonal lemma. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott 
> 
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
> minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34286

On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> 
>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>
>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
> <cut>
>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
> <cut>
>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
> 
> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
> or the other.
> 
> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
> 

You have already been so biased against my position and laser focused on 
rebuttal that you never understand what I am actually saying because you 
are simply not paying enough attention.

Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next 
step is to refute this proof directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA

I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was 
the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect 
reference of the diagonal lemma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma

-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34304

On 5/26/2021 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:33 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> Well, pointlessness is in the eye of the beholder, so everyone can
>>> judge for themselves, but I'll suggest if the responding motive is any
>>> of the following, then it's more or less pointless:
>>>
>>> a)  Helping teach/educate PO, getting him to understand his errors.
>> <cut>
>>> b)  Helping others to see PO's mistakes.
>> <cut>
>>> c)  "Helping" PO, e.g. in achieving his aims ...
>>
>> I think one should respond while it's fun and stop when it isn't.  For
>> me, the fun lies in trying to get relatively definitive statements from
>> a crank.  This is often easy to start with (after all, if you've
>> revolutionised mathematics you want the world to know) but eventually
>> becomes a real challenge as most cranks learn that clarity is their
>> enemy.  Often all that can be achieved is a repeated refusal say one way
>> or the other.
>>
>> It's a strange form of interaction.  I often wonder what it would be
>> like to have a pint in the pub with such a person...
>>
> 
> You have already been so biased against my position and laser focused on 
> rebuttal that you never understand what I am actually saying because you 
> are simply not paying enough attention.

BARF!

> 
> Now that I found out how simple the diagonalization proof is, my next 
> step is to refute this proof directly.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6osxSX9GA
> 
> I never paid any attention to it before because I thought that it was 
> the same thing as the horribly convoluted dozens of layers of indirect 
> reference of the diagonal lemma.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonal_lemma
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34351 — Is this understanding of diagonalization correct? (final draft)

On 5/25/2021 3:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/05/2021 17:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> In Message ID <I8ednT5676UOvjT9nZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com>, Peter
>> Olcott admits that he's wrong according to "conventional analysis" and 
>> that
>> discussing with him requires following some "unconventional"
>> analysis.
>>
>> PO: I understand where you are coming from. I am coming from somewhere 
>> else.
>> PO: If you analyze what I am saying using conventional analysis then 
>> what I
>> PO: am saying is incorrect.
>>
>> "Conventional analysis" is the only vessel which lets us sail into every
>> imaginable universe such that we can be sure of anything. Those
>> universes are the only "somewhere elses" we need.
> 
> Of course PO does not actually have any coherent "alternative analysis". 
>   He wouldn't have a clue where to start defining that.  The phrase is 
> entirely content-free, one of his "magical phrases" he employs in order 
> to reassure himself that he's right despite all the persistent criticisms.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

To the best of my current understanding diagonalization only proves that 
there does not exist any instance of Halts that returns a value to H_Hat 
that corresponds to the actual halting behavior of H_Hat in the 
computation Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);

Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt 
decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing 
to return any value to H_Hat.

If my understanding of diagonalization is correct then I just proved a 
key possibility that it utterly ignores.




-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34245 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores

On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
> to return any value to H_Hat.

And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.

Fundamental requirement of a Computation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34250 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores

On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>> to return any value to H_Hat.
> 
> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
> 
> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
> 

You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value 
to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()

Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a 
value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very 
stupid thing to keep repeating.

void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
   if (Input_Halts)
     HERE: goto HERE;
}

int main()
{
   u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
   Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
}

http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf

It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and 
as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk 
you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!



-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34251 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores

On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>
>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>
>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>
> 
> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
> 
> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
> stupid thing to keep repeating.
> 
> void H_Hat(u32 P)
> {
>   u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>   if (Input_Halts)
>     HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>   u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>   Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
> }
> 
> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
> 
> 
> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
> 
> 
> 

IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
flunk the Turing Test)

You seem to have a blind spot on this, you claim that Halts never
returns an answer to H_Hat because of infinite recursion, but in the
case of main calling H_Hat which calls Halts it MUST, or Halts can not
return its answer to Main.


THIS is the proof that H_Hat is a Halting Computation, and that all you
logic is a pile of useless goo.

You CLAIM to be working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory,
but you try to redefine fundamental definition so you aren't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34253 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores

On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever needing
>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>
>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>
>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>
>>
>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>
>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>
>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>> {
>>    u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>    if (Input_Halts)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>    Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>> }
>>
>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>
>>
>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>
>>
>>
> 
> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
> flunk the Turing Test)
> 

I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to 
comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever 
called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.

If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too 
unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.

> You seem to have a blind spot on this, you claim that Halts never
> returns an answer to H_Hat because of infinite recursion, but in the
> case of main calling H_Hat which calls Halts it MUST, or Halts can not
> return its answer to Main.
> 
> 
> THIS is the proof that H_Hat is a Halting Computation, and that all you
> logic is a pile of useless goo.
> 
> You CLAIM to be working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory,
> but you try to redefine fundamental definition so you aren't.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34276 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores

On 5/25/21 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever
>>>>> needing
>>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>>
>>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>>
>>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>>
>>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>>
>>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>>> {
>>>    u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>>    if (Input_Halts)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>>    Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>>> }
>>>
>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
>> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
>> flunk the Turing Test)
>>
> 
> I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
> comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
> called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
> 
> If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
> unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.
> 

AND what YOU don't understand is the Computation Theory principle that a
Computation (and thus a Turing Machine) MUST behave the same for all
invocations of it for a given input. Thus if H won't return an answer to
H^, then it CAN'T return the answer when asked directly. THus H can NOT
be a finite computation for the problem of H^,H^.

As has been pointed out, the code you have described for H fails to be a
real computation, and thus is NOT the equivalent for a Turing Machine,
and thus can't be a candidate for H.

If H^(H^) -> H(H^,H^) ->  H^(H^) was a REAL infinite recursion, then
H(H^,H^) can't ever return to anybody, and thus doesn't answer.

Once H has the smarts to break the loop so it can answer when asked
directly, it need to do the same when called by H^, as it is no o=longer
called in infinite recursion.

That Software Engineering principle applies to TRULY infinite recursion,
not potential infinite recursion or infinite recursion of a case that
isn't what was given.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#34280 — Re: Halting problem and the possibilities that Diagonalization simply ignores(Proxy inputs)

On 5/26/2021 7:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/21 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2021 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/25/21 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/2021 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/25/21 1:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conventional analysis utterly ignores the fact that a simulating halt
>>>>>> decider would possibly abort the simulation of H_Hat before ever
>>>>>> needing
>>>>>> to return any value to H_Hat.
>>>>>
>>>>> And if H doesn't return the answer to the H_Hat that called it, It
>>>>> doesn't return the answer to anybody, so failed to be a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fundamental requirement of a Computation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are saying that on the basis that Halts() does not return any value
>>>> to main() that it does not return any value to H_Hat()
>>>>
>>>> Within the context of the execution trace where Halts() does return a
>>>> value to main() and does not return any value to H_Hat() that is a very
>>>> stupid thing to keep repeating.
>>>>
>>>> void H_Hat(u32 P)
>>>> {
>>>>     u32 Input_Halts = Halts(P, P);
>>>>     if (Input_Halts)
>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>     u32 Input_Would_Halt = Halts((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
>>>>     Output("Input_Would_Halt = ", Input_Would_Halt);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is like someone could hit you in the face with a Boston cream pie and
>>>> as the pie drips off you face and making it difficult for you to talk
>>>> you MUMBLE THERE IS NO PIE !!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IF Halts does not return its answer to the copy of H_Hat directly called
>>> by main, then Halts FLUNKS the test of being a Computation (and YOU
>>> flunk the Turing Test)
>>>
>>
>> I am going to quit talking to you on the basis that you are unable to
>> comprehend the software engineering principle that no function ever
>> called in infinite recursion ever returns any value to its caller.
>>
>> If you can't understand something as simple as this then you are far too
>> unqualified of a reviewer for me to spend time reading or replying to.
>>
> 
> AND what YOU don't understand is the Computation Theory principle that a
> Computation (and thus a Turing Machine) MUST behave the same for all
> invocations of it for a given input. Thus if H won't return an answer to
> H^, then it CAN'T return the answer when asked directly. THus H can NOT
> be a finite computation for the problem of H^,H^.
> 

The case that I am showing is a hierarchy where only the pinnacle of the 
hierarchy gets a return value.

> As has been pointed out, the code you have described for H fails to be a
> real computation, and thus is NOT the equivalent for a Turing Machine,
> and thus can't be a candidate for H.
> 

No you don't understand that the entire simulation hierarchy is data 
that the simulating halt decider is processing on the basis of its inputs.

> If H^(H^) -> H(H^,H^) ->  H^(H^) was a REAL infinite recursion, then
> H(H^,H^) can't ever return to anybody, and thus doesn't answer.
> 

My process of proxy inputs explains this completely yet no one here is 
smart and open minded enough to even try to understand.

> Once H has the smarts to break the loop so it can answer when asked
> directly, it need to do the same when called by H^, as it is no o=longer
> called in infinite recursion.
> 

As I keep telling you and you stupidly ignore I am only analyzing Ĥ(<Ĥ>) 
I am not analyzing H(<Ĥ,Ĥ>). Changing the subject has been the most 
common tactic that people use to keep up their rebuttals and simply 
ignore that I made my point.

> That Software Engineering principle applies to TRULY infinite recursion,
> not potential infinite recursion or infinite recursion of a case that
> isn't what was given.
> 

Inputs with the pathological self reference error P are transformed into 
equivalent inputs without the pathological self-reference error P2 and 
software engineering is applied to P2.

Every input P that contains a simulating halt decider that it invokes on 
P (PSRE) has this simulating halt decider H replaced by simulator S 
defining a new input P2. The halting value of P2 provides the correct 
halting value of P.

It is very difficult to understand that this is correct, yet this is the 
key basis for correctly deciding otherwise undecidable inputs. Only by 
explaining this as proxy inputs can it be validated.

This is all explained now on pages 1-2: 
http://www.liarparadox.org/Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation.pdf

-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web