Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Respect [was: The halting problem as defined is a category error]
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6bbfb575969993ce9293f348d978b63da2cf48c8@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 11:19:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1439890"; 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: <105hna4$328it$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/19/25 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 stated that it DOES something that it doesn't.

Also, you imply that your "input" isn't the input that actually needs to 
be given, as without the code of the specific HHH that this DDD calls, 
no Simulating Halt Decider could do the simulation that you talk about.

It should be noted that it is a well known property of Artifical 
Intelegence, and in particular, Large Languge Models, are built not to 
give a "correct" answer, but an answer the user will like. And thus they 
will pick up on the subtle clues of how things are worded to give the 
responce that seems to be desired, even if it is just wrong.

When you add to the input the actual definition of "Non-Halting", as 
being that the exectuion of the program or its complete simulation will 
NEVER halt, even if carried out to an unbounded number of steps, they 
will give a different answer.

If you disagree with that definition, then you are admitting that you 
don't know the meaning of the terms-of-art of the system, but are just 
admitting to being the lying bastard that you are.


> 
>> 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.

But the problem is that your HHH that answers doesn't do a correct 
simulation.

Yes, if *THE* HHH is one that correctly simulates the input (that has 
been fixed to include the code of HHH) then that simulation will not 
halt and be non-halting, but that HHH never answers.

Since that input included the code for the HHH that doesn't abort, it 
isn't the input that any of your HHHs that do abort has been given.

Thus, the reason you need to LIE about what the input is.

> 
> That everyone here denies what every first year CS student
> would understand seems to prove that they know that they
> are liars.
> 

The problem is that a first year CS Student would see your mistake. (or 
would be destined to fail out of the program).

Your use of arguments like that is what shows that you don't understand