Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:09:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <102v2u7$3a7t7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org>
 <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2413b15420503b75be7b81f32a96e9a72c251fa@i2pn2.org>
 <102ugc3$35emj$2@dont-email.me> <vzD4Q.1265580$lZjd.937261@fx05.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:10:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="181068feba52be991947ff9f62d7131d";
	logging-data="3481511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XG0+SqnOLl0TS7Di+0QAO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QLyBvytdU7X0yhDFUVCzgO7qRF0=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250618-6, 6/18/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vzD4Q.1265580$lZjd.937261@fx05.ams4>

On 6/18/2025 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:53:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 6/18/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/17/25 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE; return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
>>>>>> then any first year CS student knows that when each of the above are
>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH that none of them ever stop running
>>>>>> unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus
>>>>> there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that you
>>>>> claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation (which in
>>>>> this context means complete)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever
>>>> stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever stop running unless
>>>> aborted*
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How about the fact that if they abort, they never did a correct
>>> simulation,
>>
>> *You are not addressing THE EXACT POINT*
>>
>> *When HHH never aborts any of the above functions then*
>> (a) None of the functions ever stops running.
>> (b) Each of the above functions stops running anyway.
> 
> You need to be clear that you are not making a claim about general
> undecidability but a claim about the SPECIFIC CASE of pathological self
> reference present in the classic Halting Problem definition .. the trolls
> here (especially Damon and Mikko) like to ignore that you are doing that.
> 
> /Flibble

Yes that is what I am doing here.
If my reviewers would not dishonestly change the
subject as the basis of their rebuttal they would
know that I am correct.

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