Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:27:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <1029pul$1ah2f$17@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me>
 <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me>
 <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> <1028s74$153ga$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:27:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0";
	logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FsXcOTAJaz/AyEXs7Q4eF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cpMm58CljgSJgtyJHk11d94YmXk=
In-Reply-To: <1028s74$153ga$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-10, 6/10/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/10/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with 
>>>>>>>>> algorithms,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you think that shows that 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours.
>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,
>>>>
>>>> There you go.
>>>>
>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. 
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.
>>>>
>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ 
>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not 
>>>>> working on the halting problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>>>
>>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It 
>>> aborts before it can see how the program ends.
>>>
>>
>> This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence
>> on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer
>> HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH
>> the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH()
>> would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this
>> is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence.
> 
> But the abort is coded in the input. 

I corrected you on this too many times. Stopping running
is not halting. Only reaching a final halt state is halting.
That I had to tell you this several times seems to prove
that you are dishonest.


> Dreaming of a HHH that does not 
> abort is not a valid argument, and certainly not showing technical 
> competence.
> That you cannot see that the code to abort changes the behaviour of the 
> program is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence.
> 
> 
> It is a verified fact that the simulated program contains the code to 
> abort and therefore specifies a halting program.
> Ignoring that input is just a stupid error of the programmer.
> IF have told you that many times and you could not come up with a 
> counter argument.
> It seems over your head that adding code to a program may change its 
> behaviour.


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