Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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: Respect [was: The halting problem as defined is a category error]
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:24:40 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 211
Message-ID: <105ktg8$2pjsc$2@dont-email.me>
References: <105bdps$1g61u$1@dont-email.me> <105c0lk$1k7ip$1@dont-email.me>
 <105c22v$1k9r9$3@dont-email.me> <105c5rt$1l4j7$1@dont-email.me>
 <105cddu$1r7mi$1@dont-email.me> <105e259$26kvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <105h115$ghr$1@news.muc.de> <105h23i$2uj5e$2@dont-email.me>
 <c3815f270bfa85711ee540bfe1776a2476c15fdd@i2pn2.org>
 <105hna4$328it$1@dont-email.me> <105i6eg$2ki8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <105it83$3cagp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 08:24:41 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="18a3a8f1335c0ab9d7d12f40e528924c";
	logging-data="2936716"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FucBljJPLOQ0JGuvOmyGf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2ZxkZwiX20KPAXi2FDmKzyuedhg=
In-Reply-To: <105it83$3cagp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 20.jul.2025 om 16:08 schreef olcott:
> On 7/20/2025 2:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.jul.2025 om 05:20 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/19/2025 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/19/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ps. learn to post more respectfully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott doesn't show
>>>>>> respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown any respect
>>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands the 
>>>>>> concept
>>>>>> of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and 
>>>>>> learning,
>>>>>> and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays 
>>>>>> contempt for
>>>>>> them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is
>>>>>> a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct
>>>>>> him, something that you've sensibly given up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
>>>>> what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
>>>>> clear.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have done no such thing, because they can't
>>>>
>>>> Since yoiu feed them lies, all you have done is shown that you think 
>>>> lies are valid logic.
>>>>
>>>>> I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
>>>>> rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
>>>>> a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
>>>>> pleasure of gaslighting:
>>>>
>>>> Because you are just too stupid.
>>>>
>>>> How is the "pattern" that HHH detects a non-halting pattern, when 
>>>> non- halting is DEFINED by the behavior of the directly executed 
>>>> machine, and the pattern you are thinking of exists in the execution 
>>>> of the DDD that halts because it was built on the same HHH you claim 
>>>> is correct to return 0,
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your claim *IS* just a lie, and you shows your ignorance by 
>>>> saying you can't undetstand how it is one.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <input to chat bots>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>>> and returns 0.
>>>>> </input to chat bots>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every chatbot figures out on its own that HHH
>>>>> correctly rejects DDD as non-terminating because
>>>>> the input to HHH(DDD) specifies recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BECAUSE YOU LIE TO THEM, and a prime training parameter is to give 
>>>> an answer the user is apt to like, and thus will tend to just accept 
>>>> lies and errors provided.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I only defined the hypothetical possibility of a simulating
>>> termination analyzer. This cannot possibly be a lie. They
>>> figured out all the rest on their own.
>>
>> No you told it that a correct simulating termination analyser could be 
>> presumed. Which is an invalid presumption, because it has been proven 
>> that it cannot.
>>
> 
> Unlike a halt decider that must be correct
> on every input a simulating termination analyzer
> only needs be correct on at least one input.

As usual only an invalid claim without evidence.

> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop2()
> {
> L1: goto L3;
> L2: goto L1;
> L3: goto L2;
> }
> 
> HHH correctly determines the halt status of
> the above three functions.

Irrelevant, because the case we are talking about has neither an 
infinite loop, nor an infinite recursion.
HHH must simulate DDD that calls HHH. If HHH halts, then there is only a 
finite recursion:

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
   printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");
}

HHH decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, 
which is incorrect.


> 
>>>
>>>> All you are doing is showing you don't understand how Artificiial 
>>>> Intelegence actualy works, showing your Natural Stupidity.
>>>
>>> That they provided all of the reasoning why DDD correctly
>>> simulated by HHH does not halt proves that they do have
>>> the functional equivalent of human understanding.
>>
>> The other error is the presumption that a simulation that does not 
>> reach the end of the simulation is evidence for non-termination. 
> 
> *Incorrect paraphrase*
> Halting is defined as reaching a final halt state.

Yes and non-haltig is defined as never reaching the haltstate when 
running undisturbed. When a computer is switched off, or a simulation 
aborted, before a final halt state is reached, there is no evidence for 
non-halting behaviour of the program.

> 
> if the state is final, the machine just stops and continues no more.
> https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/38228/what-is-halting
> 
> When it is correctly predicted that
> an infinite simulation of the input
> cannot possibly reach its own "return"
> statement final halt state then the
> input is non-halting.

But when it is incorrectly predicted, the program fails. This is the 
case when HHH aborts the program that is specified in the input, which 
has the same abort code as HHH itself. The input specifies a halting 
program, as proven by other simulations, but HHH fails to reach this 
final halt state. This is evidence that HHH is not the right tool for 
this input.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========