Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:40:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 Message-ID: <1029qn1$1ah2f$19@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me> <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me> <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me> <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> <1027vah$r7bj$5@dont-email.me> <62f0d331bd0d0519682207acf598694d84cac114@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:40:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0"; logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+lDtoZqk86iWLBo9Fav+NT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5f9iDqAlaIXVafgfGlH99f0yaNY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <62f0d331bd0d0519682207acf598694d84cac114@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-10, 6/10/2025), Outbound message On 6/10/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/9/25 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/9/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work >>>>>>>>>>> with algorithms, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That you think that shows that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours. >>>>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm, >>>>>> >>>>>> There you go. >>>>>> >>>>>>> which is what is meant in this context. >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ >>>>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not >>>>>>> working on the halting problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>>>> >>>>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It >>>>> aborts before it can see how the program ends. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence >>>> on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer >>>> HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH >>>> the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH() >>>> would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this >>>> is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence. >>> >>> And it is a verified fact that you just ignore that if HHH does in >>> fact abort its simulation of DDD and return 0, then the behavior of >>> the input, PER THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS, is to Halt, and thus HHH is >>> just incorrect. >>> >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> How the f-ck does DDD correctly simulated by HHH >> reach its own "return" statement final halt state? > > Who said correctly simulated by HHH? > > You need to make a decision on which part of your arguement is a lie? > > Is HHH a program? if not, your whole argument is a category error. (you > have actually admitted this error) > In other words you are stupidly making the counter-factual statement that termination analyzers cannot operate on C functions. It is a verified fact that they do operate on C functions so shut-the-f_ck-up about this. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer