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: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:24:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <102rtr6$2doc9$7@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102pifu$1odus$3@dont-email.me> <102rclh$29lrl$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:24:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26";
	logging-data="2548105"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TduyKucCzzr7Ze8ARW1St"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOZxFDh3S4l8VDm1hrYqm9MfTk4=
In-Reply-To: <102rclh$29lrl$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250617-2, 6/17/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/17/2025 4:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 16.jun.2025 om 18:58 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It seems very difficult for you to read.
>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper.
>>> HHH is incorrect 
>>
>> Baseless dogmatic statements that are utterly bereft of any
>> supporting reasoning at all DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS.
> 
> Dreams that are utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning at all DO NOT 
> COUNT AS REBUTTALS.
> 
>>
>>> and there is no way to make a correct HHH for all inputs.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> THAT FACT THAT NOT ONE PERSON HAS MET THIS CHALLENGE
>>>> IN SEVERAL YEARS IS VERY STRONG EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT.
>>>
>>> It has been proven that no correct HHH exists, 
>>
>> Counter-factual, Not one person ever proved this.
> 
> Wrong. It has been proven, but you close your eyes and pretend that the 
> proofs do not exit. Very childish.
> 

I ignore most of your messages.
It is categorically impossible to show how DDD correctly
simulated by simulating termination analyzer HHH can
possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final
halt state.

Flibble can see this first hand because he knows C.

That you don't understand this proves that you
have less technical competence that a CS graduate.

>>
>>> so it makes no sense to challenge anybody to make a correct HHH. The 
>>> challenge itself shows a lack of understanding of the matter.
>>>
>>
>> In other words you don't have any rebuttal all you
>> have is dogmatic statements utterly bereft of any
>> supporting reasoning.
>>
> 
> Many words, but no reasoning in your text. It seems you cannot come up 
> with a better counterargument.


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