Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 02:05:44 +0000
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2025 21:05:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Respect [was: The halting problem as defined is a category error]
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
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> <105i6eg$2ki8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <105it83$3cagp$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6bb63e1a51a04a3a1967e3ace046239f24cae92@i2pn2.org>
 <-Mqdnf-tWo0hHOD1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <04eb5289dcec17e1d6e9c9724f7d86189e0a261a@i2pn2.org>
 <jSKdnaGSP54rEOD1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <b101dbe32768eb905e09a611ca44f63d18eb2d77@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <b101dbe32768eb905e09a611ca44f63d18eb2d77@i2pn2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250720-8, 7/20/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Message-ID: <_Zacne1aAv7lPeD1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 156
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-EU9nH++N/TdjpPbRKAe2EbzHBqaz/GOcPia4F1UFcG7j8HChGKESUeraKpJTVjkruCzDbj+6FqPckUx!hNjm3rAyaJ+ytnACej3qIgaN0uBTQuFUHSlgFMP4ZSd2H5j9WXpbO61MHN/84+f69MMY1OFmw+5w!rw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 7/20/2025 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/25 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/25 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2025 2:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2025 om 05:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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 told it that a correct simulating termination analyser 
>>>>>>> could be presumed. Which is an invalid presumption, because it 
>>>>>>> has been proven that it cannot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unlike a halt decider that must be correct
>>>>>> on every input a simulating termination analyzer
>>>>>> only needs be correct on at least one input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, got a source for that definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Per you favorite sourse:
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between a Halt Decider and a Terminatation Analyzer is:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which 
>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program 
>>>>> halts for each input. 
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Thus HHH(Infinite_Loop) is correct for every
>>>> input that Infinite_Loop has.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But the Termination Analyzer is HHH, not HHH(Infinite_Loop).
>>>
>>
>> HHH correctly reports on the halt status
>> for every input that Infinite_Loop takes,
> 
> So?
> 
>> all zero of them. This proves that HHH is
>> a termination analyzer for Infinite_Loop
>> even if HHH is wrong on everything else.
>>
> 
> Nope, because a Termination Analyzer needs to answer about *ANY* Program 
> reperesented with an input.
> 
*No that is merely your ADD*
determine whether the evaluation of a given program
halts for each input.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer