Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 07:28:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1b0f211d64311dca26f3c00cf5fda41bf6ad938b@i2pn2.org>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me>
 <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org>
 <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 11:29:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="737134"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me>

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.

Since every decieer that gives an answer has stopped before reaching the 
end of the program, for which a complete simulation of it will, it just 
shows that it is wrong.

Of course, you first have to fix the system so the input *IS* a program, 
which means that it includes the code of the decider it is built on, 
which means that decider need to also be a defined program.

Thus, your LIES are exposed as just uses of strawmen to try to put 
forward incorrect conditions.

Sorry, all you have been doing is show that your world is built on lies, 
and your brain seems to be based on straw.