Op 24.jul.2024 om 04:51 schreef olcott:
On 7/23/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/23/24 2:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/23/2024 12:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
olcott <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/23/2024 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-22 16:10:55 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <[email protected]> wrote:
[ .... ]
Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. >>>>>>>>> So, I
will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits
that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read. >>>>>>>> All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's >>>>>>>> wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with >>>>>>>> the
same lack of success. Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract >>>>>>>> reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance,
prevent him
learning at all.
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless
repetition?
Thanks!
Rebuttals like yours are entirely baseless by failing to point
out any
mistake.
What makes you think taht Alan Mackenzie was trying to rebut what
Fred. Zwarts had said?
In other words you don't see the ad hominem attacks against
me that are listed above?
What, exactly, is wrong with what you call my "ad hominem attacks"? In >>>> most of what you write on this group you are objectively wrong,
*No as many as one person ever actually showed that*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
Of the two hypothetical possible ways that HHH can be encoded:
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation at some point.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
We can know that (b) is wrong because this fails to meet the design
requirement that HHH must itself halt.
and (a) is wrong because it says that DDD doesn't halt when it does.
When the halting problem is defined as providing the halt
status of an input that does the opposite of whatever the
value to decider reports then people that are not mindless
robots programmed to disagree understand that the whole problem
must be tossed out on its ass.
Changing the subject to hide your errors.
In the above code there is no input that does the opposite of what the
decider reports. It is just an invalid simulation.
Every yes/no question that has no correct yes/no answer IS WRONG !!!
It is not freaking undecidable IT IS WRONG !!!
Irrelevant, because there is no yes/no question in the above code.
We only see a problem because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself.
DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:
int main() {
return HHH(main);
}
This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD,
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides
that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which
is incorrect.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)