home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 58,096 of 59,235   
   olcott to Kaz Kylheku   
   Re: Never any actual rebuttal to HHH(DD)   
   22 Oct 25 10:47:48   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 10/22/2025 10:40 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore   
   >>>> whatever I say.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been   
   >>> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve.   
   >>>   
   >>> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Turing machines in general can only compute mappings   
   >> from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing   
   >> mappings that in some cases are not provided in the   
   >> inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.   
   >   
   > The halting problem positively does not propose anything   
   > like that, which would be gapingly wrong.   
   >   
      
   It only seems that way because you are unable to   
   provide the actual mapping that the actual input   
   to HHH(DD) specifies when DD is simulated by HHH   
   according to the semantics of the C language,   
   even though I do remember that you did do this once.   
      
   No sense moving on to any other point until   
   mutual agreement on this mandatory prerequisite.   
      
   >> Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know   
   >> that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you.   
   >   
   > You are wrong because I (1) don't see that gaping flaw in the   
   > definition of the halting problem, (2) you don't even   
   > try to explain how such that flaw can be. Where, how, why   
   > is any decider being asked to decide something other than   
   > an input representable as a finite string.   
   >   
   > I've repeated many times that the diagonal case is constructable as a   
   > finite string, whose halting status can be readily ascertained.   
   >   
   > Because it's obvious to me, of course I'm going to reject   
   > baseless claims that simply ask me to /believe/ otherwise.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca