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

Groups > comp.theory > #134783 > unrolled thread

Plonkers

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Plonkers Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-02 01:46 +0000
    Re: Plonkers Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 02:12 +0000
      "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 21:41 -0500
        Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 04:08 +0000
          Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 23:14 -0500
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 00:32 -0400
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:34 +0000
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-02 04:39 +0000
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 14:10 -0500
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:26 -0600
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 22:58 -0500
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:27 -0600
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 23:35 -0500
                      Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:57 -0600
          Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 18:25 -0600
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:32 -0500
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 18:35 -0600
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:04 -0500
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:17 -0600
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:26 -0500
                      Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:25 -0600
                        Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:33 -0500
                          Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:53 -0600
                            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:11 -0500
                              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:16 -0600
                                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:27 -0500
                                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 03:49 +0000
                                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:24 -0600
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 01:00 +0000
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:06 -0500
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-03 02:35 +0000
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:54 -0600
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:13 -0600
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 19:07 -0600
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 20:08 -0500
        Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:15 +0000
          Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:16 -0600
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 21:46 +0800
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:54 -0600
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 22:12 +0800
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 23:23 +0800
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:29 -0600
            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:48 -0500
              Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:57 -0600
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:00 -0500
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:09 -0600
                    Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:13 -0500
                      Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 09:12 -0600
                        Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 12:18 -0500
                          Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 14:31 -0600
                            Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 16:42 -0500
                Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 14:19 +0000
                  Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 08:42 -0600
      Re: Plonkers Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:10 +0000
      Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 07:47 -0600
        Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 22:19 +0800
          Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 10:32 -0600
            Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 00:42 +0800
          Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 11:18 -0600
            Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 01:33 +0800
              Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 12:00 -0600
                Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 02:13 +0800
                  Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 12:30 -0600
                    Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:09 +0800
                      Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:16 -0600
                        Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:23 +0800
                          Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:27 -0600
                            Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:34 +0800
                              Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:37 -0600
                                Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 03:52 +0800
                                  Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 13:57 -0600
                                    Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 04:01 +0800
                                      Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 14:31 -0600
                                        Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 05:22 +0800
                                          Re: Addressing duffer-speak olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 15:32 -0600
                                            Re: Addressing duffer-speak Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-03 22:38 +0000
                                              Re: Addressing duffer-speak "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 15:25 -0800
                                            Re: Addressing duffer-speak wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 19:40 +0800
                                              Re: Addressing duffer-speak --- head games olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 06:31 -0600
                                                Re: Addressing duffer-speak --- head games dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 07:53 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#134870 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>> * C function
>>>>> * finite string
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>
>>>> int D()
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>
>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>
>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>> * algorithm
>>> * C function
>>> * finite string
>>
>> D is a finite string 
> 
> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
> 
>> in the C programming
>> language that specifies a sequence of steps
>> and defines a C function.
> 
> So you're claiming that finite string D is a description of C function D?
> 

No that is too vague. It is exactly what I said it is.
Did you think it was a box of chocolates?

>>
>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>
>> H is something or other that can simulate
>> D and is callable from D.
> 
> So it sounds like H is not well-defined.   

It is 100% perfectly and completely defined for
its specific purpose.

> Unless you can classify it as 
> a C function, finite string, or algorithm, you claim will be dismissed 
> out-of-hand as unclear.
> 

Yes because simulation might be construed as an
actual slap in the actual face and have nothing
to do with following the steps specified by the
C source code.

>>
>> Does that sound like a dead bullfrog?
>>
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134871 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
>>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> int D()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>
>>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>
>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>> * algorithm
>>>> * C function
>>>> * finite string
>>>
>>> D is a finite string 
>>
>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>

The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite string D is.

>>> in the C programming
>>> language that specifies a sequence of steps
>>> and defines a C function.
>>
>> So you're claiming that finite string D is a description of C function D?
>>
> 
> No that is too vague. It is exactly what I said it is.

And what exactly is vague about it?

> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
> 
>>>
>>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>>
>>> H is something or other that can simulate
>>> D and is callable from D.
>>
>> So it sounds like H is not well-defined. 
> 
> It is 100% perfectly and completely defined for
> its specific purpose.

"something or other" is the exact opposite of 100% perfectly and 
completely defined.

> 
>> Unless you can classify it as a C function, finite string, or 
>> algorithm, you claim will be dismissed out-of-hand as unclear.
>>
> 
> Yes because simulation might be construed as an
> actual slap in the actual face and have nothing
> to do with following the steps specified by the
> C source code.
> 

Then your statement is dismissed out-of-hand as unclear as you haven't 
defined whether "H" refers a C function, algorithm, finite string, or 
something else.

>>>
>>> Does that sound like a dead bullfrog?
>>>
>>
> 
> 

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

#134873 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 8:33 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
>>>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>> * C function
>>>>> * finite string
>>>>
>>>> D is a finite string 
>>>
>>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>>
> 
> The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite string D 
> is.
> 

You never heard of ASCII characters?

>>>> in the C programming
>>>> language that specifies a sequence of steps
>>>> and defines a C function.
>>>
>>> So you're claiming that finite string D is a description of C 
>>> function D?
>>>
>>
>> No that is too vague. It is exactly what I said it is.
> 
> And what exactly is vague about it?
> 

The term "description" when applied in software
engineering has a different much more vague
meaning that machine description in theoretical
computer science.

>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>>>
>>>> H is something or other that can simulate
>>>> D and is callable from D.
>>>
>>> So it sounds like H is not well-defined. 
>>
>> It is 100% perfectly and completely defined for
>> its specific purpose.
> 
> "something or other" is the exact opposite of 100% perfectly and 
> completely defined.
> 

For the purposes of verifying this statement

  D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
   own simulated "return" statement.

It is 100% completely defined.

That you insist on knowing irrelevant
details such as that the C function is
encoded in ASCII proves that you are
not being honest.

>>
>>> Unless you can classify it as a C function, finite string, or 
>>> algorithm, you claim will be dismissed out-of-hand as unclear.
>>>
>>
>> Yes because simulation might be construed as an
>> actual slap in the actual face and have nothing
>> to do with following the steps specified by the
>> C source code.
>>
> 
> Then your statement is dismissed out-of-hand as unclear as you haven't 
> defined whether "H" refers a C function, algorithm, finite string, or 
> something else.
> 
>>>>
>>>> Does that sound like a dead bullfrog?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134875 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 8:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
>>>>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>
>>>>> D is a finite string 
>>>>
>>>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>>>
>>
>> The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite string 
>> D is.
>>
> 
> You never heard of ASCII characters?

Are you suggesting finite string D is the ASCII character 'D'?  That's 
not what the above code is being passed.

> 
>>>>> in the C programming
>>>>> language that specifies a sequence of steps
>>>>> and defines a C function.
>>>>
>>>> So you're claiming that finite string D is a description of C 
>>>> function D?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No that is too vague. It is exactly what I said it is.
>>
>> And what exactly is vague about it?
>>
> 
> The term "description" when applied in software
> engineering has a different much more vague
> meaning that machine description in theoretical
> computer science.

Then explain:
1) what exactly the finite string D is, and
2) what exactly the finite string D represents

> 
>>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you think it was a box of chocolates?
>>>>>
>>>>> H is something or other that can simulate
>>>>> D and is callable from D.
>>>>
>>>> So it sounds like H is not well-defined. 
>>>
>>> It is 100% perfectly and completely defined for
>>> its specific purpose.
>>
>> "something or other" is the exact opposite of 100% perfectly and 
>> completely defined.
>>
> 
> For the purposes of verifying this statement
> 
>   D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>    own simulated "return" statement.

Dismissed out-of-hand as unclear, as the above has different meanings 
depending on whether each of "D" and "H" in the above sentence refer to 
a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string.

All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string

> 
> It is 100% completely defined.
> 

False, see above.

> That you insist on knowing irrelevant
> details such as that the C function is
> encoded in ASCII proves that you are
> not being honest.

No, it is proven that *you* are not being honest as you refuse to 
clarify whether "H" and "D" refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a 
finite string.

> 
>>>
>>>> Unless you can classify it as a C function, finite string, or 
>>>> algorithm, you claim will be dismissed out-of-hand as unclear.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes because simulation might be construed as an
>>> actual slap in the actual face and have nothing
>>> to do with following the steps specified by the
>>> C source code.
>>>
>>
>> Then your statement is dismissed out-of-hand as unclear as you haven't 
>> defined whether "H" refers a C function, algorithm, finite string, or 
>> something else.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that sound like a dead bullfrog?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 

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

#134877 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 9:11 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 8:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
>>>>>>>>> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>
>>>>>> D is a finite string 
>>>>>
>>>>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite 
>>> string D is.
>>>
>>
>> You never heard of ASCII characters?
> 
> Are you suggesting finite string D is the ASCII character 'D'?  That's 
> not what the above code is being passed.
> 

The finite string of the source code for the C
function named D is composed of ASCII characters.

As has been dead fucking obvious all along. You
only ask to play childish head games.




-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134879 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 9:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 9:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 8:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 6:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/1/2025 11:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no duffer speak to this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that you have become dishonest
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so what is up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is my honest opinion of what you write. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and 
>>>>>>>>>> "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you think that this might be a box of
>>>>>>>>> chocolates unless I told you otherwise?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That part is clear.  What's not clear is the sentence:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>  >>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>>>>>> * algorithm
>>>>>>>> * C function
>>>>>>>> * finite string
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> D is a finite string 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what exactly is that finite string composed of?
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The lack of reply here indicates you don't know what the finite 
>>>> string D is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You never heard of ASCII characters?
>>
>> Are you suggesting finite string D is the ASCII character 'D'?  That's 
>> not what the above code is being passed.
>>
> 
> The finite string of the source code for the C
> function named D is composed of ASCII characters.

The function H is clearly being passed a function pointer, not a string 
of ASCII characters.

Try again.

> 
> As has been dead fucking obvious all along. You
> only ask to play childish head games.

No, what's dead obvious is that that you have no idea what you're 
talking about and are making things up as you go.

You're clearly thrashing since Kaz showed with fully operational source 
that the D that H simulates will halt after a finite number of steps.

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

#134884 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 03/11/2025 03:27, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>> The finite string of the source code for the C
>> function named D is composed of ASCII characters.
> 
> The function H is clearly being passed a function pointer, not a 
> string of ASCII characters.

Clearly a bug in H. Let us take Olcott at his word and give H a 
finite string. Since he insists that the universe of discourse is 
C, let us make it a C string.

const char *D =
"int D()\n"
"{\n"
"   int Halt_Status = H(D);\n"
"   if (Halt_Status)\n"
"     HERE: goto HERE;\n"
"   return Halt_Status;\n
"} \n";

Now do H(D) and watch what happens when you take Olcott at his word.

This is why I stopped replying directly to Olcott. It's just too 
cruel.

-- 
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

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

#134890 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 9:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/11/2025 03:27, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 10:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> The finite string of the source code for the C
>>> function named D is composed of ASCII characters.
>>
>> The function H is clearly being passed a function pointer, not a 
>> string of ASCII characters.
> 
> Clearly a bug in H. Let us take Olcott at his word and give H a finite 
> string. Since he insists that the universe of discourse is C, let us 
> make it a C string.
> 
> const char *D =
> "int D()\n"
> "{\n"
> "   int Halt_Status = H(D);\n"
> "   if (Halt_Status)\n"
> "     HERE: goto HERE;\n"
> "   return Halt_Status;\n
> "} \n";
> 
> Now do H(D) and watch what happens when you take Olcott at his word.
> 
> This is why I stopped replying directly to Olcott. It's just too cruel.
> 

LLMs take me exactly at my word and
sometimes they get the wrong answer
because the spec is not precise enough.
I just give them a few more details and
they get it.

This lets me boil the spec down to the
simplest one that they all immediately get.

int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

A C interpreter takes test.c containing
only the function above and has been adapted
so that it knows that H is a reference
to itself. It also knows that D is a reference
to the source code of function D.

This is the spec that four LLMs get:
*ChatGPT wrote this for me*

---------------------
int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

The function H is a simulating termination analyzer:
when given a function P, it literally simulates each
step of executing P() to see whether that simulated
execution ever reaches a return statement.

Now let H simulate D. Based only on the outcome of
that literal simulation (not on reasoning about what
should happen), what result should H(D) produce?
-----------------------------------

Claude AI was the only one that got this:

int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

Can D simulated by H possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement.



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134859 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:

<snip>

>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>> own simulated "return" statement.
> 
> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" 
> must be prefixed by exactly one of:
> * algorithm
> * C function
> * finite string

It can be re-stated clearly enough:

"Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."

Observation shows that Olcott's claim is mistaken.

So nothing new there.

-- 
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

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

#134862 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>
>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" must 
>> be prefixed by exactly one of:
>> * algorithm
>> * C function
>> * finite string
> 
> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
> 
> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."

But is that:

* C function H's simulation of C function D
* Algorithm H's simulation of algorithm D
* C function H's simulation of algorithm D
* Algorithm H's simulation of C function D

The answer differs depending on which one is meant.

> 
> Observation shows that Olcott's claim is mistaken.
> 
> So nothing new there.
> 

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

#134872 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 03/11/2025 01:06, dbush wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>
>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and 
>>> "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>> * algorithm
>>> * C function
>>> * finite string
>>
>> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
>>
>> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."
> 
> But is that:
> 
> * C function H's simulation of C function D

No. H doesn't have access to the C code. Clearly it *could* have 
- Olcott could pass a .c file name - but he doesn't like the idea.

> * Algorithm H's simulation of algorithm D

No. Olcott's claim that it's simulating D is mistaken. H is not 
simulating an algorithm. It's trying to simulate an x86 (and 
making a lousy job of it).

> * C function H's simulation of algorithm D

No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.

> * Algorithm H's simulation of C function D

No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.

> 
> The answer differs depending on which one is meant.

No, I don't think so. The answer is no no no no no no no.

-- 
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

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

#134874 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 8:35 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/11/2025 01:06, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>
>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" must 
>>>> be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>> * algorithm
>>>> * C function
>>>> * finite string
>>>
>>> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
>>>
>>> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."
>>
>> But is that:
>>
>> * C function H's simulation of C function D
> 
> No. H doesn't have access to the C code. Clearly it *could* have - 
> Olcott could pass a .c file name - but he doesn't like the idea.
> 
>> * Algorithm H's simulation of algorithm D
> 
> No. Olcott's claim that it's simulating D is mistaken. H is not 
> simulating an algorithm. It's trying to simulate an x86 (and making a 
> lousy job of it).
> 
>> * C function H's simulation of algorithm D
> 
> No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.
> 
>> * Algorithm H's simulation of C function D
> 
> No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.
> 
>>
>> The answer differs depending on which one is meant.
> 
> No, I don't think so. The answer is no no no no no no no.
> 

He is clearly just playing head games.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134876 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 8:35 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/11/2025 01:06, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>>
>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" must 
>>>> be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>>> * algorithm
>>>> * C function
>>>> * finite string
>>>
>>> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
>>>
>>> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."
>>
>> But is that:
>>
>> * C function H's simulation of C function D
> 
> No. H doesn't have access to the C code. Clearly it *could* have - 
> Olcott could pass a .c file name - but he doesn't like the idea.
> 

D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.

Stipulates that H has access to D, the
details don't matter and only confuse people.

>> * Algorithm H's simulation of algorithm D
> 
> No. Olcott's claim that it's simulating D is mistaken. H is not 
> simulating an algorithm. It's trying to simulate an x86 (and making a 
> lousy job of it).
> 

It is stipulated thus cannot be mistaken unless
the stipulation is incoherent.

On 10/31/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
 > I can write a C interpreter which can interpret itself.

Tries to get away with saying that he has no idea
what D simulated by H could possibly mean.

>> * C function H's simulation of algorithm D
> 
> No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.
> 
>> * Algorithm H's simulation of C function D
> 
> No. H isn't simulating an algorithm.
> 
>>
>> The answer differs depending on which one is meant.
> 
> No, I don't think so. The answer is no no no no no no no.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134863 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>
>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" must 
>> be prefixed by exactly one of:
>> * algorithm
>> * C function
>> * finite string
> 
> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
> 
> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."

It has taken me three years to get those words
exactly correctly so that they form the basis
for the next step of my proof.

*These are those words*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.

> 
> Observation shows that Olcott's claim is mistaken.
> 

Because you cheated and changed the words that
took me three years to get exactly correctly.

> So nothing new there.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134864 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/11/2025 00:32, dbush wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2025 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> *Just pay 100% complete attention to this one sentence*
>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>>>> own simulated "return" statement.
>>>
>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear.  All references to "D" and "H" must 
>>> be prefixed by exactly one of:
>>> * algorithm
>>> * C function
>>> * finite string
>>
>> It can be re-stated clearly enough:
>>
>> "Olcott claims that H's simulation of D never halts."
> 
> It has taken me three years to get those words
> exactly correctly so that they form the basis
> for the next step of my proof.
> 
> *These are those words*
> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
> own simulated "return" statement.

And those exact words are unclear.

All references to "D" and "H" must be prefixed by exactly one of:
* algorithm
* C function
* finite string

> 
>>
>> Observation shows that Olcott's claim is mistaken.
>>
> 
> Because you cheated and changed the words that
> took me three years to get exactly correctly.
> 
>> So nothing new there.
>>
> 
> 

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

#134797 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
up with the "duffer speak" reference
> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?

I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.

Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
refer to?

--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

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

#134812 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
> up with the "duffer speak" reference
>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
> 
> I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
> 

int D()
{
   int Halt_Status = H(D);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

*THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
own simulated "return" statement.


> Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
> your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
> can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
> many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
> refer to?
> 
> --
> Tristan Wibberley
> 
> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134815 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:16 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
> > up with the "duffer speak" reference
> > > to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
> > 
> > I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
> > 
> 
> int D()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = H(D);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> *THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
> own simulated "return" statement.

Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.

On the other hand, this is an evidence that olcott deliberately lies:
he knows exactly what undecidable is and hide it in 'proof'.

> > Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
> > your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
> > can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
> > many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
> > refer to?
> > 
> > --
> > Tristan Wibberley
> > 
> > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> > 
> 

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

#134817 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On 11/2/2025 7:46 AM, wij wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:16 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
>>> up with the "duffer speak" reference
>>>> to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
>>>
>>> I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
>>>
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>>     int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>     return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> *THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
>> own simulated "return" statement.
> 
> Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.
> 

You can even get the insult correctly.

> On the other hand, this is an evidence that olcott deliberately lies:
> he knows exactly what undecidable is and hide it in 'proof'.
> 

H does report on the semantic property that its
finite input string specifies.
(a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
(b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.

>>> Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
>>> your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
>>> can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
>>> many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
>>> refer to?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tristan Wibberley
>>>
>>> The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
>>> citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
>>> of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
>>> verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
>>> promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
>>> of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
>>> superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
>>> any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
>>> will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
>>>
>>
> 


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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

#134821 — Re: "duffer speak" ??? Mike can't be dishonest so what is left ?

On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:54 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 11/2/2025 7:46 AM, wij wrote:
> > On Sun, 2025-11-02 at 07:16 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > On 11/2/2025 1:15 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> > > > On 02/11/2025 02:41, olcott wrote in reply to Mike Terry:> ... what is
> > > > up with the "duffer speak" reference
> > > > > to my perfectly unambiguous statements?
> > > > 
> > > > I think he might have a problem with your ambiguous ones.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > int D()
> > > {
> > >     int Halt_Status = H(D);
> > >     if (Halt_Status)
> > >       HERE: goto HERE;
> > >     return Halt_Status;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > *THIS IS THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT UNAMBIGUOUS STATEMENT*
> > > D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its
> > > own simulated "return" statement.
> > 
> > Yes, this is the proof that olcott contradicted POO H.
> > 
> 
> You can even get the insult correctly.

What? It is smear.
I said you posted an evidence that contradicts what POOH claims.

I already know you are very shameless to be impenetrable by any insult, 
why would I do that?

> > On the other hand, this is an evidence that olcott deliberately lies:
> > he knows exactly what undecidable is and hide it in 'proof'.
> > 
> 
> H does report on the semantic property that its
> finite input string specifies.
> (a) "finite input string" term of the art from computer science
> (b) "semantic property" term of the art from Rice's Theorem.
> 
> > > > Do you maintain a glossary that you could post monthly and reference in
> > > > your posts that rely on its descriptions, I expect that then the group
> > > > can readily recognise the concepts you refer to and know which of the
> > > > many concepts they themselves recognise among the words you do /not/
> > > > refer to?
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Tristan Wibberley
> > > > 
> > > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
> > > > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
> > > > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
> > > > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
> > > > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
> > > > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
> > > > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
> > > > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
> > > > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web