Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The clueless are commenting on SHDs --- tautologies
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 10:30:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <441195ea79a7b43c4a2f3132c23304a5b8071023@i2pn2.org>
References: <CVIZP.454970$JJT6.437980@fx16.ams4>
 <44a9583f398676210d4d099c6375aedca404fcd1@i2pn2.org>
 <tY%ZP.1303511$CLof.770808@fx03.ams4> <101a4g3$1flq$1@news.muc.de>
 <101a4qv$3vfam$3@dont-email.me>
 <0e2a4e3399455f554df3facbe82962c0ffc2d7cc@i2pn2.org>
 <101asrh$4bga$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 14:31:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2565078"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101asrh$4bga$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/29/25 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2025 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/29/25 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2025 12:11 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
>>>>>>> analysed halting.  Infinite recursion detected through analysis 
>>>>>>> (rather
>>>>>>> than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING 
>>>>>>> as far
>>>>>>> as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.
>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>>>> And what makes it different?
>>>>
>>>>>> Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that 
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as 
>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>> is looking at it, it is just running.
>>>>
>>>>>> You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual 
>>>>>> running
>>>>>> of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.
>>>>
>>>>> The only person fucking confused is you, mate.
>>>>
>>>> There's no call for such vulgarities, here.
>>>>
>>>> In his post here, Richard was 100% right, as he is with virtually
>>>> everything he posts here. 
>>>
>>> It is not right that I have to correct his false
>>> assumptions many dozens of times before he first
>>> notices that I ever said anything at all.
>>
>> WHAT is the error you need to correct?
>>
>> You just keep on repeating your incorrect statement that you can't 
>> show any evidence to back up
>>
>>>
>>>> I don't like the way he expresses himself so
>>>> frequently, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.
>>>>
>>>> Being right is not a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of holding to
>>>> the truth.  PO fails continually to do this.  It seems you are little
>>>> better, at least in matters mathematical.
>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> It is a tautology that any input D to termination
>>> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
>>>
>>
>> But you need to start with a program H and a program D, which you don't.
>>
> 
> No I don't you jackass liar.
> 

Why not, since that is what the problem states?

In the context of the Halting Problem, and Computation Theory in 
general, the fundamental unit of discussion are informally called 
"Programs" (as that is the common term that people use) and more 
formally called "Compuations" which ARE entities that include ALL the 
code they use and whose behavior is only dependent on the input they are 
given.

All you are doing is proving you have a fundamental misunderstanding of 
what you are talking about.

Sorry, but you have sunk yourself into that lake of fire by your own words.