Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
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: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:59:41 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <102u2md$31q0g$3@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>
 <102rtr6$2doc9$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:59:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe59beacd6fd352315816fb5d824c89";
	logging-data="3205136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+u2u0FYx3qD/6eMo9WpYLJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r+VMF/QlJIFLtiEcbYvxn9D5gxw=
In-Reply-To: <102rtr6$2doc9$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:24 schreef olcott:
> 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.

Yes, you close your eyes for the errors presented to you and pretend 
that they do not exist.

> 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.

Indeed. No HHH exists that can do a correct simulation if DDD calling 
HHH itself.