On 5/29/25 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/29/2025 12:11 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
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.
It is not right that I have to correct his false
assumptions many dozens of times before he first
notices that I ever said anything at all.
WHAT is the error you need to correct?
You just keep on repeating your incorrect statement that you can't show
any evidence to back up
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
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
It is a tautology that any input D to termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
But you need to start with a program H and a program D, which you don't.
And then H has to show that the SPECIFIC D that it is given will not halt.
SInce, when you lock down your H to what you claim it actually will do,
and complete D to include that code, the correct simulation of D will
halt, just after H stops, showing that H did not correctly prove that
THIS input will not halt if not aborted.
All you show is that SOMEOTHER input will not halt, because it is built
on SOMEOTHER decider that isn;t this one, just that you LIE by trying to
give them all the same name.
Until you can show the error in my logic, and not just keep repeating
your refuted errors, you are just proving that you are just 100%
mistaken, and a blantant liar.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)