Path: ...!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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 06:57:38 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <552ecd9f68e6e30fb764e92692efe48cf1b0df1d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd1b0c9910f7e5b7ea0b0c67b38559929af3ba28@i2pn2.org>
 <votnk9$pb7c$3@dont-email.me>
 <247d795c20365feb849ed3911fdff318bcec74b0@i2pn2.org>
 <vouepn$10maq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:57:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="455967"; 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: <vouepn$10maq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7518
Lines: 149

On 2/16/25 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2025 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/16/25 5:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2025 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/25 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some 
>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is 
>>>>>>>>>>> false I
>>>>>>>>>>> will point out the error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Step 1: Find people who know C.
>>>>>>>>>> Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows 
>>>>>>>> that HHH
>>>>>>>> does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not 
>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>> get away with changing the subject to some other DD somewhere else
>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>> anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows that no 
>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>> of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding instance of HHH can
>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically a decider is any TM that always stops running.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine)
>>>>>
>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.
>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input
>>>>> that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, but the answer given by the decider must match the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any divergence from the above specification is stipulated
>>> to be incorrect.
>>
>> In other words, you are ADMITTING you have no idea of the actual 
>> problem, and think people are interested in your strawman.
>>
>> The WORLD will reject any divergence from the actual specification, 
>> leaving you out in the dark just admitting you are a moron.
>>
>>>
>>> *This is the pathological input termination analyzer problem*
>>> Some people might see this as isomorphic to other problems
>>> and some people may not see this.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you are just now admitting you have been LYING for 
>> decades, because you were too stupid to understand what you were 
>> claiming you were working.
>>
>> Glad you finally admitted it.
>>
>> The POOP theory is admitted to be just a pile of shit that you made 
>> up, and says NOTHING about the real Halting Problem that you are 
>> admitting is too "complecated" for you to undetstand.
>>
>> Sorry, that is the facts of what you just said.
> 
> I am stipulating that I have solved the simulating
> termination analyzer pathological input problem.

Then stop saying your answer apply to the halting problem.

And stop saying your answer refutes the problem you are now admittiong 
you were never working on.

> 
> Some people will see a remarkable similarity to the
> halting problem proofs, and some will not.
> 

Since there actually isn't any, those that think there is a real 
connection are just stupid.

Oh, YOU are one that think they are connected.

So, you are just admitting that you are stupd.

Your biggest problem is you MISUSE so many terms becuase you have tried 
to redefine them. Things like "program" and "semantics", so you really 
need to olcott-prefix your redefined words, or your statements are 
really just a stupid attempt at fraud. This seems deliberate, since you 
so refuse to even acknoldge that you are using the words in a 
non-standard way.

Note, you don't even actually define your problem, because if you did 
clearly define what you mean, it would be obvious that what you are 
talking about is totally worthless and uninteresting.