Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:23:34 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:23:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="030154485115acd58dbc4da32e6ee0de"; logging-data="4137985"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+edmGdank79jPWoSa0pxuI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:0vXepHJLq2mLgL1bNvmZez2DFLc= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250619-2, 6/19/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott: >> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly >>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination >>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return" >>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read. >>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic >>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting >>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ??? >>>>> >>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a recipe to >>>>> draw a square circle does not count as a proof that square circles >>>>> exist. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to >>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant, >>>> >>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest. >>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have >>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong >>>> this would seem to make you a liar. >>>> >>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details >>>> of how this is not correct: >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly >>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH >>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its >>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state. >>> >>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though the >>> end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up the >>> simulation. >>> >> >> That is counter-factual and over-your-head. >> > > No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again? > Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt, > the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that when > the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle away from > the same point. Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is. First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this. All CS graduates would understand this. > Closing your eyes for verified facts and pretending that they do not > exist is very childish. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer