XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 6/14/25 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/14/2025 8:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 8:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 12:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/25 10:37 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 4:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 12.jun.2025 om 17:30 schreef olcott:
Even after many corrections, Olcott repeated his claims >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without learning anything from his previous errors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lack of knowledge does not make someone look stupid, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the resistance against learning does.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the counter-example input as such an input would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
// rec routine P
// §L :if T[P] go to L
// Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Strachey_P()
{
L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
return;
}
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-
abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It *is* a verified fact DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
Showing the failure of HHH to reach the end of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
The code of the input to HHH(DD) specifies
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
Then you are lying that HHH will abort and return 0.
That is your problem, you world is based on being able to >>>>>>>>>>>> just lie about what you want.
That you can't understand this is merely a lack
of sufficient tecnh9cal competence on your part.
No, it is merely a lack of honesty on your part.
That you continue to fail to show all of the details >>>>>>>>>>>>> of exactly how DD does reach its simulated "return"
statement final halt state proves that you know you
are not competent.
But DD DOES reach its final state
THE SIMULATED DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS SIMULATED FINAL
YOU DAMNED JACKASS.
So you erroneously think. I have shown how it does.
You have never shown how DDD correctly emulated by
simulating termination analyzer HHH reaches its own
simulated final halt state.
And why should I?
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
Therefore admitting that you are a damned* liar.
* Condemned to actual Hell
SO, what is the lie?
I am just pointing out that your strawman criteria is just invalid.
You can not show all of the details of how and why
it is proved to be invalid because my criteria is correct.
When you try to go counter-factual you look really silly.
The problem statement: Design a PROGRAM that takes the representation
of a PROGRAM and its input, and determines if that PROGRAM will halt
when run.
The term representation is misleading thus inaccurate.
A partial halt decider takes a finite string that encodes
a sequence of state changes.
No, it doesn't, and I don't know where you get that.
The input encodes the algorithm (and the input) used by the program.
What is "misleading" about "representation"?
You have stipulated that you input is JUST the code for the C function
D/DD/DDD and nothing else.
I have corrected you on this hundreds of times.
Your brain damage must be quite severe.
Really?
I think you are just lying to yourself again.
So are your repenting and saying that the input DOES contain the code
for the one and only HHH that this DDD calls?
How many times have you listed the byte pattern for "the input" and it
is just the assembly code for DDD?
Since the definition of a program includes a FULL and DETAILED listing
of ALL the algorithm used, and the execution of DDD will call HHH,
then the code of HHH is part of the program DDD, and thus must be
included as part of the input.
Yes. What the Hell did you think that HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD meant?
So, you admit that you description of the input as just the code of the
C function is a lie, but the actual input includes the assembly code of
the one HHH that this DDD calls?
And thus when you look at changed HHHs you are changing the input, and
you have been lying everytime you insisted that you did not change it?
Failure to do that makes the input not a full representation of the
program to be decided, and thus a valid input.
Sorry, you have been told this for quite a while, and your refusal to
see it just shows how stupid you are, and how much you believe your
own lies.
We have been over this point many hundreds of times.
You can't remember the same point from one post to the next.
The problem is your story is like a pendulem, it keeps swinging from one
side to the other.
How is that a lie.
Note, I never say that *IF* HHH does a correct simulation, that it
can not reach a final state, just that your HHH doesn't do that
correct simulation, and thus that criteria is non-sense.
HHH does do the minimum required for a correct decision.
No, since its decision is wrong.
Since I challenged you to show how it was wrong and
you never did it seems probable that you are a liar.
Sure I did.
When the input to HHH(DDD) is correctly simulated by
simulating termination analyzer HHH it cannot possibly
reach its "return" statement final halt state. The one
time that you tried to show otherwise you cheated.
But your HHH that answers did not correectly simulate this input.
If fact, with your new acceptance that the code for HHH is part of the
input DDD, then there can not be an alternate HHH that does the correct simulation,
Most of the other people here are not even technically
competent to cheat. All of their rebuttals are mere
dogmatic assertions entirely bereft of any supporting
reasoning.
No, it is just that your arguments are just the words of a pathological
liar that can't keep his story straight.
HHH(DDD) asks HHH to reply with the behavior of DDD when run,
int main()
{
DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD)
}
Show me anywhere in any computer science where (and how) a
partial halt decider reports on the behavior of its caller.
What does HHH(DDD) actually MEAN in compter science?
Look at
HHH(DDD) returns 0, defined to mean its input represents a non-halting
program.
It never has actually been about the vague idea of "represents".
It has always been the precise idea of the sequence of state
changes that are actually specified by its input.
But the input isn't a set of state changes. It is an encoding of the
algorithm that produces that state changes.
That encoding is the representation.
That algorithm that has been encoded, describes the FULL behavior of the program, not some partial simulation.
The question has ALWAYS been about the behavior of that program
described by that input.
All you are doing is admitting that you are too confused by the
DDD() will halt, making that answer wrong.
That is one of your fundamental errors, you think wrong answers can be
right if you lie well enough.
That answer only seems wrong under the incorrect assumption
that partial halt deciders are supposed to report on the
behavior of their caller.
Where did I say that?
You are just proving yourself to be a LIAR.
Once you understand that computer science does not allow
partial halt deciders to report on the behavior of their
caller then your mistake is corrected.
And where do you get that from?
Computer Science requres a Halt Decider H when given an appropriate representation of program P, to decide on the behavior of that P, even
if that P calls the decide H.
There is not "caller" exception"
You are just showing that you are a stupid liar.
You yourself condemn the use of strawmen, but then, you always
projected your errors onto others, just like Trump, who seems to be
your model for behavior and logic.
You logic is based on the need to say that two things that are very
different are actually exactly the same thing.
That is just a LIE. Just like most of what you say.
That you say that I am a liar and you don't mean intentional
falsehood is by itself the kind of reckless disregard for the
truth that loses defamation cases.
Nope, as Liar includes the person who makes claims so grossly incorrect
that any reasonably intelegent person would know that it is wrong.
That you say that I am a liar and cannot correctly point
out any mistake is also the kind of reckless disregard for
the truth that loses defamation cases.
That I have pointed out the errors, yet you can not understand them
either makes you a pathological liar, or a person so mentally
incompetent that you might be considered a danger to society.
Should I try to contact your local athorites and see if a local mental
health practisioner can evaluate them and see if you need to be locked
up for your protection?
In some ways, I wonder if you are intentionally trying to make yourself
look stupid to keep out of danger from those kiddie porn charges, maybe
you just got off as being mentally incompent, and not able to stand trial.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)