XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/13/2025 2:44 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-13, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/12/2025 9:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-13, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/12/2025 8:36 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/12/2025 12:39 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> The huge advantages of LLM systems is that they do not   
   >>>>>>>> begin their review on the basis that [Olcott is wrong]   
   >>>>>>>> is an axiom. No humans have ever been able to do this   
   >>>>>>>> in thousands of reviews across dozens of forums.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Your principal modus operandi is that you reject any piece of evidence   
   >>>>>>> which contradicts your set view in any matter.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Not at all. Not ever.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Even now, in this post.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Here you are also doing it again: completely overlooking all the times   
   >>>>>>> someone has agreed with you in some point, and declaring that that   
   >>>>>>> everyon has a /personal/ bias against you.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> People on these forums have only agreed with   
   >>>>>> me at most 1% of the time and the only case   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 1% is much larger than zero.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> besides Ben the agreement was on trivialities.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Grasping trivialities is the extent of your skill, so that's   
   >>>>> all you get.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You are not following the actual reasoning of the   
   >>>> paper. You leap to the conclusion that I am wrong.   
   >>>> That is not you pointing out an error.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's what you did to my code.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Your code essentially claims that infinite recursion   
   >> stops when you monkey with it.   
   >   
   > You're welcome to point of what exactly you mean by "monkey" and which   
   > lines of code are doing that.   
   >   
      
   Once D simulated by H correctly matches its correct   
   non-halting behavior pattern doing anything besides   
   aborting the simulation and rejecting the input is cheating.   
      
   > Which bits am I flipping that constitute monkeying?   
   >   
   > Remember, the code takes the state of an abandoned simulation   
   > /exactly/ as it was left by HHH (or whichever decider)   
   >   
   > And then it steps that simulation forward in exactly the correct way,   
   > the same way that HHH previously stepped it: it passes precisely the   
   > correct slave_state, and other arguments, to DebugStep.   
   >   
   > The code does not manipulate the content of slave_state other than   
   > stepping it with DebugStep (your function, the same one used by HHH).   
   > Between the time HHH abandoned the simulation, and the new dcode   
   > starts stepping it again, nothing has touched slave_state or   
   > slave_stack.   
   >   
   > So again, what is monkeying and where is it happening?   
   >   
   > You've had several weeks to Back up your claim ... and nothing.   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)