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 10:30:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f348ad5b73ffc165af5a0985d0fdbe20ed3be667@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> <101b5id$9dkt$1@dont-email.me>
 <101b6jh$9rgs$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 14:31:30 -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: <101b6jh$9rgs$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/29/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/29/2025 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.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, you've (once again) admitted you're not working on the 
>> halting problem, as that is about algorithms / programs.
>>
> 
> All you have is deflection jackass.
> 

All you have are lies.