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 12:27:48 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: <1029pul$1ah2f$17@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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> <1028s74$153ga$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:27:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0"; logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FsXcOTAJaz/AyEXs7Q4eF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cpMm58CljgSJgtyJHk11d94YmXk= In-Reply-To: <1028s74$153ga$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-10, 6/10/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 6/10/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott: >> 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. > > But the abort is coded in the input. I corrected you on this too many times. Stopping running is not halting. Only reaching a final halt state is halting. That I had to tell you this several times seems to prove that you are dishonest. > Dreaming of a HHH that does not > abort is not a valid argument, and certainly not showing technical > competence. > That you cannot see that the code to abort changes the behaviour of the > program is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence. > > > It is a verified fact that the simulated program contains the code to > abort and therefore specifies a halting program. > Ignoring that input is just a stupid error of the programmer. > IF have told you that many times and you could not come up with a > counter argument. > It seems over your head that adding code to a program may change its > behaviour. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer