XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/8/25 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.

In other words, you consider "Definitions" to be counter-factual.

Of course you do, as you consider FACTS to be counter-factual,

Soory, you have sunk your reputation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*

*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?

Where do you get that LIE from?


EVERY PROGRAM (you need to make DDD into a program by including the
codee of the PROGRAM HHH that it calls, so that needs to be defined too)
that uses an HHH that returns an answer for HHH(DDD), which is a
requirement for HHH to be a decider for this input, will HALT when run
or correctly *and thus completely) emulated.

The fact that HHH stops before it gets there is just your strawman that
you use to LIE about the behavior.


Your problem is that by your own words you have admitted to a category
error, and thus that you claim is just a lie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On Mon, 09 Jun 2025 11:54:18 -0400, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:34 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

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

Which you stated only includes the instructions of the function
DDD on multiple occasions (see below),

It is proven that you are a liar by the part of my reply that you
erased.

HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions that specify
that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.

Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine code of
the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, and the
machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, and
that address 000015c3 is part of DDD?

I admit that:
(a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH,
(b) the directly executed DDD() and (c) the directly executed HHH()
WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD.

Because this is true it derives conclusive proof that the input to
HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

That people here disagree with self-evident truth seems to indicate
that people here are liars.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

In other words, a non-answer.  I'll take that as a no.

And since your HHH doesn't work with algorithms (or their description
/ specification) as you've admitted, you're not working on the halting
problem.

You are far too sloppy in your interpretation of the meaning of words.
Also when I do provide an answer you simply ignore it.

Replying with something other than "yes" or "no" to a yes or no question
is not an answer.

The input to HHH(DDD)

Which only consists of the the instructions of the function DDD, as you
have admitted, you're not working with algorithms (or their description
/ specification) and therefore not working on the halting problem.

If you would just quit lying about that people might take you seriously.

On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote:

*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
or they themselves could become non-terminating.

But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original
was given.

It is not supposed to be the same program.

So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input.

The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes.

Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite
string HHH

No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion.

Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and
therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem.

On 6/7/2025 10:56 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:

The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at the machine
address of 00002183.

The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at the machine
address of 00002190.

False.

The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at
the machine address of 000015c3,

*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*
*That is not an instruction of DDD*

In other words, you're not operating on algorithms. And since the
halting problem is about algorithms, what you're working on has
nothing to do with the halting problem.

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working on
the halting problem, people would stop bothering you.

Machine code is a REPRESENTATION of an algorithm.

/Flibble

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 09/06/2025 20:54, dbush wrote:

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not
working on the halting problem, people would stop bothering
you.

Well, I doubt if he'll ever do that, but we could stop bothering
him anyway. You'd be amazed at how much time you save. :-)

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/9/25 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/06/2025 21:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 09/06/2025 20:54, dbush wrote:

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not working
on the halting problem, people would stop bothering
you.

Well, I doubt if he'll ever do that, but we could stop bothering him
anyway. You'd be amazed at how much time you save. :-)

Dude!!  THINK what you're suggesting!   What about all the innocent
children who might read his posts and come away with the wrong idea
about halting?  And if someone doesn't reply pointing out PO's
numerous mistakes, that would mean that PO IS RIGHT!  On the Internet,
the person who posts last in an argument WINS THAT ARGUMENT,
regardless of what that person was actualy saying - that's "usenet
rulez"...  You'ld be AGREEING WITH PO, saying that he REALLY IS A
GENIUS and everybody else here is a lying idiot!!

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

Every first year computer science student that knows C
can confirm that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
never stop running unless aborted.

No, I first year computer science student would know that given the
above as the full definition of the input means that a correct
simulation of the above program is a linker error of undefined symbol HHH.

The tricky part for people indoctrinated with the
"received view" of the halting problem proofs is
that they believe that HHH is not supposed to report
on the behavior that its actual input actually specifies.

And your part is you think that HHH get to make up the meaning of that
input.

I gueas you are just lying that you followed the template of the proof,
perhaps because you are too stupid to understand it.

Instead HHH must report on the behavior of the
directly executed DDD().

Which *IS* as DEFINED the behavior its input actually specifies.

I guesss you think "Definitions" don't actually define what things mean,
but just sort of hint at it.

They never bothered to notice that this directly
executed DDD() IS NOT AN INPUT, instead it is
the caller of HHH().

And you fail to understand that the input *IS* (or at least is claimed
to be) the representation of the program DDD, which defines the
"behavior of the input", so that which you say it can't be is what it
must be,

They are so sure that I am wrong that they
never notice this key point.

Nope, you are just to stupid to see your error.

But then, it seems you life was just based on lying, so truth was never
part of it.,

If H(D) is not asking for H to determine the behavior of D when directly
run, then your whole proof is based on the lie where you claimed you
were following the rules of the proof program. Since the core part of
the proof is that D asks H to decide on itself, if that isn't what H(D)
means, you ignored the semantics of the proof.

But since you don't understand what semantics actually are, I guess that
just fits you.

Mike.
ps. ok, I was exagerating slightly :)  The truth is that ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING DIFFERENT would come to pass if nobody responded to PO -
except that posters would have more time for doing other stuff.  PO
would continue believing he is a genius, until he dies and stops
posting.  He would never "refine and perfect" his argument to the
point where he submits his paper for publishing, and would never gain
the industry reputation he needs to reapply to Cycorp and be put in
charge of Cyc development. All exactly the same!

My ultimate goal here is to formalize the notion of
analytic truth so that we can prevent the rise of the 4th
Reich by providing an objective way to detect lies.

WHich is sort of hard to do when you base you proofs on lies.

This also will expose the liars of climate change that
are happy to kill off the whole planet as long as they
can keep making fossil fuel profits.

Again, hard to do when you base you proof on lies.

Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

See how well reasoned the above paper is before
you dismiss me as a crank.

You mean your worthless puff piece?

Sorry, you just don't know what truth actually is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 6/10/25 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/25 8:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 7:10 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/06/2025 21:39, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 09/06/2025 20:54, dbush wrote:

If you would just be honest about the fact that you're not
working on the halting problem, people would stop bothering
you.

Well, I doubt if he'll ever do that, but we could stop bothering
him anyway. You'd be amazed at how much time you save. :-)

Dude!!  THINK what you're suggesting!   What about all the innocent >>>> children who might read his posts and come away with the wrong idea
about halting?  And if someone doesn't reply pointing out PO's
numerous mistakes, that would mean that PO IS RIGHT!  On the
Internet, the person who posts last in an argument WINS THAT
ARGUMENT, regardless of what that person was actualy saying - that's
"usenet rulez"...  You'ld be AGREEING WITH PO, saying that he REALLY
IS A GENIUS and everybody else here is a lying idiot!!

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

Every first year computer science student that knows C
can confirm that DDD correctly simulated by HHH would
never stop running unless aborted.

No, I first year computer science student would know that given the
above as the full definition of the input means that a correct
simulation of the above program is a linker error of undefined symbol
HHH.

Not when it is stipulated that HHH does simulate DDD
dumb ass.

And where is that in the input?

Or is it a System Requirement?

And, do you mean it is stipulated that HHH will COMPLETELY and CORRECTLY simulate DDD?

In which case, it isn't allowed to abort it simulation.

If not, that doesn't actually tell us what it does if it might not be a complete simulation, and thus we don't know what it will do,


Sorry, you are just caught in the lies of your system being inconsistant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)