Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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 21:58:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b101dbe32768eb905e09a611ca44f63d18eb2d77@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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 01:58:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1520198"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <jSKdnaGSP54rEOD1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

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.

It was right about THAT input, but that isn't *ALL*

You are just lying to yourself about what a Termination Analyzer is 
because you just don't understand the meaning of the words.

Sorry, provide a reliable source for you definition, or you are just 
admitting that you world is all just make believe and thus a lie.