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: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker
 Maximalism FULL_TRACE
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:01:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d64dd217f45fcab645cc81f4feb31aa5a3af5449@i2pn2.org>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me> <1047vld$n4s2$1@dont-email.me>
	<1048hp0$qd4f$2@dont-email.me>
	<66c00d5703907e846f537310dfb201485e1b7b2a@i2pn2.org>
	<10492eb$u8g5$1@dont-email.me> <104b5l9$fnl$1@news.muc.de>
	<104ben3$1hqln$1@dont-email.me> <104bt5h$1l1g$1@news.muc.de>
	<104bunk$1kcb5$1@dont-email.me> <104did7$hlh$1@news.muc.de>
	<104e164$2852a$1@dont-email.me> <104e6nd$12ua$1@news.muc.de>
	<104e93k$29rpg$1@dont-email.me> <104ed4k$223c$1@news.muc.de>
	<104ehua$2c91h$1@dont-email.me> <104epfu$nqi$1@news.muc.de>
	<104fdma$2n8gq$1@dont-email.me> <104fu68$rafj$3@dont-email.me>
	<104h4a5$324da$2@dont-email.me> <104ikfo$v7he$2@dont-email.me>
	<104jbvk$3jrpl$8@dont-email.me> <104lagd$13hr1$1@dont-email.me>
	<104lopg$7l4q$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:01:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4049755"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:54:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/9/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.jul.2025 om 17:03 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/8/2025 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 20:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/7/2025 2:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 4:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>>>>>>>>> It is really weird that you are calling a 100% complete concrete
>>>>>>>>> specification "a low level of abstraction".
Those are opposites.

>>>>>>>>> Thus HHH(DD) does correctly determine that the halting problem's
>>>>>>>>> counter-example input *DOES NOT HALT*
>>>>>>>>> That you say this is "valueless" seems quite disingenuous.
It is valueless; DDD does halt.

>>>>>>> It is just like you are saying that all huge things are always
>>>>>>> very tiny. The high level of abstraction of C is not any low level
>>>>>>> of abstraction.
Your HHH is more concrete than just talking about a halt decider.

>>>>>>> Not at all. Anyone should instantly see that no HHH can possibly
>>>>>>> ever return to any simulated DD.
Yes, HHH is not a decider.

>>> 100% complete proof that you cannot understand remains 100% complete
>>> proof.
Not convincing.

>> As usual no rebuttal, but claims without evidence.
>> Many errors have been pointed out in your '100% proof', but you ignore
> One of these "errors" was that HHH cannot simulate itself at all.
....past the call to itself, which you vehemently agree to. Like this one:
void main() {
  HHH(HHH, HHH);
  printf("hello world");
}

>> I proved my statement in the part of the quotation that you deleted.
>> Closing your eyes for a proof does not make it disappear. It would be
>> childish to say that.
> I stop at your first big mistake because I found that my reviewers
> has a very hard time paying any attention at all to a single point. I
> can make the same single point to Richard 500 times and he never notices
> that I said it even once.
He just disagrees with it. You are the one who ignores every 
contradiction.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.