Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:07:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me>
 <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org>
 <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b0f211d64311dca26f3c00cf5fda41bf6ad938b@i2pn2.org>
 <102pnvr$1q95t$1@dont-email.me>
 <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 05:07:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26";
	logging-data="2257928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UEsOcJChe2RQbxlUF/Z9k"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sjl1WbO2EVjJghrOvDG73KZxnMk=
In-Reply-To: <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250616-6, 6/16/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/16/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/16/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2025 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it seems you don't understand that the problem is that while, 
>>>>> yes, if HHH does infact do a correct simulation, it will not reach 
>>>>> a final state, that fact only applie *IF* HHH does that, and all 
>>>>> the other HHHs which differ see different inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *I should have said*
>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>> then DDD never reaches its simulated "return" statement
>>>> final halt state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>> Since that isn't the criteria that the decider is supposed to answer 
>>> by, it is just a strawman.
>>>
>>
>> *You merely dishonestly changed the subject*
> 
> No I didn't, the subject is about "Halting"
> 
> Halting is defined for PROGRAMS
> 
> 
>>
>> Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show
>> exactly how the below (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this
>> challenge and change the subject.
>>
>>    (a) One of more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>    simulated by some simulating termination analyzer HHH.
>>
>>    (b) None of the above simulated DDD instances ever
>>    reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
> 
> Since that isn't the definition of Halting/Non-Halting, it is just a 
> strawman.
> 
> Non-Halting isn't just that a partial simulation doesn't reach a final 
> state, and that is what your (a) describes, as to be NOT partial, it 
> must simulate *ALL* the instructions.
> 
> The fuller definition of non-halting is that a machine is non-halting if 
> it will not reach a final state performing an UNBOUNDED number of steps.
> 

In other words you do not understand what every CS graduate
would understand: That once a non-halting behavior pattern
is correctly matched in a finite number of steps that this
conclusively proves non-halting.

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