1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • The clueless are commenting on SHDs

    From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 28 18:50:10 2025
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far as
    the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Thu May 29 10:40:53 2025
    On 2025-05-28 18:50:10 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far as
    the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    Yes. But the analysis must not detect an infinte recursion where there
    is none. That is where Olcott's analyzer (when evaluated as a halting
    decider candidate) has a bug.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Wed May 28 21:28:57 2025
    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far as
    the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
    is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
    of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Thu May 29 16:30:17 2025
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
    as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
    is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
    of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan Mackenzie@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Thu May 29 17:11:31 2025
    Mr Flibble <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
    as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
    is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
    of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    There's no call for such vulgarities, here.

    In his post here, Richard was 100% right, as he is with virtually
    everything he posts here. I don't like the way he expresses himself so frequently, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.

    Being right is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of holding to
    the truth. PO fails continually to do this. It seems you are little
    better, at least in matters mathematical.

    /Flibble

    --
    Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to Alan Mackenzie on Thu May 29 17:19:06 2025
    On Thu, 29 May 2025 17:11:31 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

    In his post here, Richard was 100% right

    Being not even wrong is 100% wrong, mate.

    /Flibble

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Thu May 29 19:44:47 2025
    On 5/29/25 12:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
    as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
    is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
    of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    /Flibble

    Really? so what do I have wrong?

    PRECISE STATEMENTS, not handwavy, and based on DEFINED terminology.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu May 29 19:48:14 2025
    On 5/29/25 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/29/2025 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting.  Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather >>>> than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far >>>> as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing >>> is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running >>> of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    /Flibble

    I have never been able to tell if he is just dishonest
    or his ADD prevents him from remembering things that he
    has been told dozens of times.


    Because the truth is just to advanced for you.

    Of course the ignorant can't understand those that know what they are
    doing, especially if the ignorant insist on staying ignorant.

    Sorry, the fact that you ADMIT that you are just lying about what you
    are doing shows how stupid you actually are.


    You ADMIT you don't follow the meaninf of the words as Terms-of-Art, and
    thus are LYING when you try to use them in the art.

    You ADMIT that you objects don't meet the basic miniumum requrements to
    be used in the cases you are using them, thus admtting that your
    argument is just category error.

    Of course, because you think you have the right to change the rules,
    which you don't, you are just admitting you don't even know HOW to do
    what you claims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat May 31 12:00:59 2025
    On 2025-05-29 16:37:11 +0000, olcott said:

    On 5/29/2025 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather >>>> than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far >>>> as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing >>> is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running >>> of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    I have never been able to tell if he is just dishonest
    or his ADD prevents him from remembering things that he
    has been told dozens of times.

    It doesn't really matter. We can see that Flibble is wrong in the same
    way as Olcott but not to the same extent. They are what they are and
    all we need to care about is that we will not be fooled.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sat May 31 11:54:49 2025
    On 2025-05-29 16:30:17 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

    On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

    On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
    analysed halting. Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
    than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
    as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.

    /Flibble

    And what makes it different?

    Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
    being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
    is looking at it, it is just running.

    You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
    of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

    The only person fucking confused is you, mate.

    Godd to hear as that means that I am not confused.

    Anyway, it is impotrant to clear when you are talking about a real
    excution, when about a simulation of a real execution, when about
    a simulation of a simulation, and when about someting else. For
    example, when one of them is aborted then the others are not.

    --
    Mikko

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