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 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: 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> <105hna4$328it$1@dont-email.me> <105i6eg$2ki8q$1@dont-email.me> <105it83$3cagp$1@dont-email.me> <-Mqdnf-tWo0hHOD1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <04eb5289dcec17e1d6e9c9724f7d86189e0a261a@i2pn2.org> 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: 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 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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.