Path: ...!news.misty.com!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
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 20:27:06 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnv4tf$2a40b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vnvv32$2e9m1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2pd4$31nli$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vo2us8$32kg8$1@dont-email.me>
 <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3cf0$35449$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3t3n$37kcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org>
 <vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 01:27:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3199155"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5268
Lines: 94

On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved !
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable
>>>>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated
>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows that isn't 
>>>>>>>> the question being asked. The quesiton you NEED to ask is will 
>>>>>>>> the program described by the input halt when run?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic is just 
>>>>>>>> faulty.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong.
>>>>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite
>>>>>>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this
>>>>>>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote
>>>>>>> (lack of) understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are talking 
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and that 
>>>>>> mapping is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the program the 
>>>>>> string describes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies
>>>>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior of 
>>>> the progran being run.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote
>>> as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that.
>>
>> No, that *IS* the definition.
>>
> 
> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite
> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings
> specify. That this is not dead obvious to everyone here
> merely proves that learned-by-rote does not involve any
> actual comprehension.
> 
> 

And the behavior the finite string specifies is the behavior of running 
the program. WHich means the finite string has to fully define a program.

THose are DEFINITIONS.

You ignorance by never learning is just proving your stupidity.

Sorry, but everything you do just shows that you are nothing but a 
pathological liar that doesn't care about what is actually true, but 
what you want to be true, and are too stupid to understand the problem 
with that.

Your inability to understand that there ARE definitions are rules just 
futhers that observation.