Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.comgw.net!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Analysis_of_Flibble=E2=80=99s_Latest=3A_Detecting_v?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s=2E_Simulating_Infinite_Recursion_ZFC?=
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:39:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <100la55$30aak$3@dont-email.me>
References: <Ms4XP.801347$BFJ.668081@fx13.ams4>
 <95db078e80b2868ed15a9a9a2af0280d96234a3a@i2pn2.org>
 <100jo18$2mhfd$1@dont-email.me> <100jpv9$2m0ln$4@dont-email.me>
 <100kt0c$2tae8$3@dont-email.me> <100l9p2$30b4k$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:39:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7faeabb3f4a2e362069c5f0f1728441c";
	logging-data="3156308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iwrfwNPhhUgiw/GrDJ5BG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NxqNNOGh/HIO+w7t9BaIVTJ3B3U=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <100l9p2$30b4k$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250521-10, 5/21/2025), Outbound message
X-Received-Bytes: 4459
Bytes: 4586

On 5/21/2025 2:32 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 21.mei.2025 om 17:54 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/21/2025 12:56 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2025 06:23, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/25 3:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Conclusion: ----------- Flibble sharpens his argument by
>>>>>> clarifying that SHDs are not required to simulate infinite
>>>>>> execution. They are expected to *detect* infinite behavior
>>>>>> structurally and respond in finite time. This keeps them
>>>>>> within the bounds of what a decider must be and
>>>>>> strengthens the philosophical coherence of his
>>>>>> redefinition of the Halting Problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you can't "redefine" the Halting Problem and then say you have 
>>>>> answered the Halting Problem.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean like how ZFC resolved Russell's
>>>> Paradox thus converting "set theory" into "naive set theory"?
>>>
>>> No, because there is no paradox in the Halting Problem. A proof by 
>>> contradiction is not a paradox.
>>>
>>
>> A self-contradictory input and a proof by contradiction
>> are not the same thing. A proof by contradiction would
>> conclude that "this sentence is not true" is true because
>> it cannot be proved false.
>>
>> ZFC shows how a whole way of examining a problem can be
>> tossed out as incorrect and replaced with a whole new way.
>>
>> The HP proofs are based on defining a D that can
>> actually do the opposite of whatever value that H returns.
>> No such D can actually exist.
>>
>>> A better parallel would be Cantor's proof that there are uncountably 
>>> many real numbers, or Euclid's proof that there is no largest prime. 
>>> Both of these proofs make a single assumption and then derive a 
>>> contradiction, thus showing that the assumption must be false. No 
>>> paradoxes need apply.
>>>
>>> In the Halting Problem's case, the assumption is that a UNIVERSAL 
>>> algorithm exists for determining whether any arbitrary program halts 
>>> when applied to given arbitrary input. The argument derives a 
>>> contradiction showing the assumption to be false.
>>>
>>
>> Likewise with Russell's Paradox it is assumed that there
>> can be a set of all sets that do not contain themselves as
>> members. This is "resolved" as nonsense.
>>
>>> Whatever you think your HHH determines, we know from Turing that it 
>>> doesn't determine it for arbitrary programs with arbitrary input. It 
>>> therefore has no bearing whatsoever on the Halting Problem.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT.
>>
> 
> Verifiable counter-factual.
> 
> The simulation of DDD does not reach a natural end only because HHH 
> prevents it to halt by a premature abort.

That is not true yet not a damned lie.
You are merely incompetent at software engineering.

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