On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious
that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot
possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:What specifically do you believe is not proven?
On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:What about this paper that I wrote?
"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
There are no words.
/Flibble
Can you show me wrong?
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove". >>>>>>>>>>>
The article makes no attempt to prove anything.
That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
a proof?
Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
Irrepevant.
That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
possibly be more relevant.
Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is. >>>>
It means that when I conclusively
prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
from incorrect.
Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.
When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
is not any actual rebuttal at all.
Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedge
of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge
I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof.
I have not failed to understand what does not exist.
A proof is any sequence of statements
that are necessarily true and thus impossibly false.
Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
basis of all proofs.
No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.
So how many decades how you carefully studied the
philosophical foundation of analytical truth?
It doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcal
truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the
very first things teached and learned.
That dogs are animals is an analytical truth
that does say something about the real world.
Like almost everyone you don't know much about
analytical truth.
As you respond to my question without answering it it is
obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
whatever value that H derives. The key element that
all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found
that every conventional proof of the halting problem
never provides an actual input that would do the
opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification
of that test case.
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input
cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never
actually existed.
It is always the case that the computation the PHD
is embedded within or the function that calls the
PHD that does the opposite. It is never the input.
Doesn't matter. Those proofs prove that for any Turing machine there
is an input that proves that the decider is not a halt decider.
*Counter-factual there never has been any such an input*
This may be difficult to understand.
A lack of comprehension does not count as a rebuttal.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ // *adapted from bottom of page 319*
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation until embedded_H
sees the repeating pattern and transitions to Ĥ.qn.
⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot possibly
reach its own ⟨Ĥ.qy⟩ state or final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
thus can never do the opposite of whatever embedded_H decides. https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even beAs you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious >>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives. >>>>>>> The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot >>>>>>> possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
On 6/19/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:Only if that non-decider simulates.
On 2025-06-18 14:39:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious >>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H
derives. The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on >>>>>>> cannot possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
How can't it be constructed? You are certainly passing that input to HHH.The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of thatYet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be
test case.
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.
Do you think that no programs halt when HHH is prepended? Do you thinkDepending on the style of the proof one can ither prove that theNo this is counter-factual.
counter example exists or that if a halting decider exists then the
caunter example exists, too, and otherwise none is needed.
It has never been possible for *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to do the opposite of whatever value that it decider decides.
int main()Then explain why you are not passing it to HHH for fuck's sake.
{
DD(); // IS NOT AN ACTUAL INPUT TO THE
} // HHH(DD) THAT THIS DD() CALLS.
In the C programming language it has always been impossible for theNo, C does not forbid recursion.
caller of a function to be an argument to this called function.
The finite string of x86 machine language that is passed as an argumentDD does have the same "string". How else would you pass a program?
to HHH *is not exactly one and the same thing as the directly executed
DD*
Intuition would tell you that the behavior must be the same, yetNo, the definitions tell us the behaviour is the same; your intuition
empirical proof proves they are not the same.
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be >>>>> constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious >>>>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination >>>>>>>>> analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives. >>>>>>>>> The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot >>>>>>>>> possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual >>>>>>> input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial >>>>>>> halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that >>>>>> test case.
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
On 6/19/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 14:39:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:What specifically do you believe is not proven?
On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:What about this paper that I wrote?
"big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
There are no words.
/Flibble
Can you show me wrong?
Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts
https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word "prove". >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The article makes no attempt to prove anything.
That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of >>>>>>>>>> a proof?
Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
Irrepevant.
That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
possibly be more relevant.
Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a fact is. >>>>>>
It means that when I conclusively
prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
from incorrect.
Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.
When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
is not any actual rebuttal at all.
Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedge
of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge
I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof.
I have not failed to understand what does not exist.
A proof is any sequence of statements
So far correct.
that are necessarily true and thus impossibly false.
But this is not. A proof starts with assumptions that may be true of
false. Each statement that is not a definition, axiom, postulate,
hypthesis or other assumption follows from some previous statements
by an inference rule. The conclusion of a proof is the last statement
of the sequence.
Some proofs begin with definitions instead of assumptions.
Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
basis of all proofs.
No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.
So how many decades how you carefully studied the
philosophical foundation of analytical truth?
It doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcal
truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the
very first things teached and learned.
That dogs are animals is an analytical truth
that does say something about the real world.
No, it is not. Vernacular terms "dog" and "animal" have aquired teir
traditiona meanigs separately and at different times. The statement
"Dogs are aninals" is known to be true from comparison of various
things to the traditional meanings of those words.
Like almost everyone you don't know much about
analytical truth.
As an analytincal truth says nothing about the real world the
usefulness of any knowledge about it is limited.
As you respond to my question without answering it it is
obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
whatever value that H derives. The key element that
all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found
that every conventional proof of the halting problem
never provides an actual input that would do the
opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification
of that test case.
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input
cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never
actually existed.
Depending on the style of the proof one can ither prove that
the counter example exists or that if a halting decider exists
then the caunter example exists, too, and otherwise none is
needed.
No this is counter-factual.
It has never been possible for *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to do
the opposite of whatever value that it decider decides.
*For 90 years no one ever bothered to notice this*
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be >>>>>>> constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious >>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination >>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives. >>>>>>>>>>> The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual >>>>>>>>> input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial >>>>>>>>> halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that >>>>>>>> test case.
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders".
That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
Simulating termination analyzer is an existing
term with the exact meaning that I am referring to.
The term "termination analyzer" refers to a problem different from
the halting problem.
Not at all.
Google [termination analyzer versus halt decider]
The halting problem is about questions about computations but
the termination problem is about questions about programs.
In both cases the STA or the SPHD is required to determine
the behavior specified by the *input* encoded as a sequence
of state changes.
On 6/22/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 15:49:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be >>>>>>>>> constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination >>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every >>>>>>>>>>> conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual >>>>>>>>>>> input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial >>>>>>>>>>> halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant >>>>>> for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders".
That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
It is long but there is no evdence that it would be confusing. Those
Most reviewers here don't even understand that halting
is only defined as reaching a final halt state.
On 6/23/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-22 16:28:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/22/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 15:49:30 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:There has never been any HP proof that has
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even beAs you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious
that you don't see any proofs in your article.
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot
possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every >>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed. >>>>>>>>>> In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository. >>>>>>>>>
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything >>>>>>>> for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant >>>>>>>> for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem. >>>>>>>>
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt deciders". >>>>>
It is long but there is no evdence that it would be confusing. Those
Most reviewers here don't even understand that halting
is only defined as reaching a final halt state.
It seems that you can't understand what others write as a response.
You never show any signs of understanding.
If others don't understand your writing as intended then your writing
is not clear enough. People who do not understand some detail often
ask for clarifications but you never clarify what is asked.
I stop at their first counter-factual mistake because
people here have a very hard time fully addressing one
single point.
They keep flitting back and forth over many different
points to permanently avoid fully addressing one single
point.
Every time anyone makes a provably counter-factual
statement it is certain that they are not understanding.
On 6/24/2025 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-23 15:26:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/23/2025 1:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-22 16:28:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/22/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-21 15:49:30 +0000, olcott said:Most reviewers here don't even understand that halting
On 6/21/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-20 16:54:32 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/19/2025 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:There has never been any HP proof that has
On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input >>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot even beAs you respond to my question without answering it it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is obviousIt is a fact that there is no actual input D to any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination
that you don't see any proofs in your article. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on cannot
possibly exist.
Nonsense is not a fact.
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional proof of the halting problem never provides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.
The core part of those proofs is a constructive
specification of that
test case.
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed. >>>>>>>>>>>> In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository. >>>>>>>>>>>
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.
Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything >>>>>>>>>> for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a
relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>
Simulating termination analyzer are equivalent to
a partial halt deciders.
If they are they should be called "simulating partial halt
deciders".
That is too confusing for most of my reviewers.
It is long but there is no evdence that it would be confusing. Those >>>>>
is only defined as reaching a final halt state.
It seems that you can't understand what others write as a response.
You never show any signs of understanding.
If others don't understand your writing as intended then your writing
is not clear enough. People who do not understand some detail often
ask for clarifications but you never clarify what is asked.
I stop at their first counter-factual mistake because
people here have a very hard time fully addressing one
single point.
They keep flitting back and forth over many different
points to permanently avoid fully addressing one single
point.
That is typical to USENET discussions. But you are free to stick
to whichever point you want. If you can't that's your problem.
Every time anyone makes a provably counter-factual
statement it is certain that they are not understanding.
No, it is not. A counter-factual hypothesis is a valid tool of
rational thinking.
You focus too much on understanding. More important is that you write
in a way that can be understood. Too often your writing style looks
like your intent is that the reader fails to notice that your words
don't make sense.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
*This is the question that HHH(DDD) correctly answers*
Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer
HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement
final halt state?
Since any first year CS student can see that DDD
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"return" statement final halt state, then everyone
not seeing this has proven to have insufficient
technical competence to evaluate my work.
On 6/25/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
*This is the question that HHH(DDD) correctly answers*
Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer
HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement
final halt state?
Since any first year CS student can see that DDD
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"return" statement final halt state, then everyone
not seeing this has proven to have insufficient
technical competence to evaluate my work.
Why repeating the obvious? Everyone here understands that HHH fails to
reach the end of the simulation, where other simulators have no problem
to reach the end of exactly the same input.
ChatGPT totally understands that HHH(DDD) correctly
determines that DDD does not halt.
*The Function DDD() In Principle*
The core issue is that DDD() is recursively calling
itself through HHH(DDD), which would lead to infinite
recursion if allowed to continue. HHH detects this
pattern and predicts that DDD() would not halt on its own.
Therefore, HHH correctly reports that DDD() does not
halt, even though in the actual execution, it halts
because HHH steps in and prevents the infinite recursion.
*ChatGPT analysis of HHH(DDD)* https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
On 6/25/2025 2:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
*This is the question that HHH(DDD) correctly answers*
Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer
HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement
final halt state?
Since any first year CS student can see that DDD
simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
"return" statement final halt state, then everyone
not seeing this has proven to have insufficient
technical competence to evaluate my work.
Why repeating the obvious? Everyone here understands that HHH fails to
reach the end of the simulation, where other simulators have no
problem to reach the end of exactly the same input.
ChatGPT totally understands that HHH(DDD) correctly
determines that DDD does not halt.
*The Function DDD() In Principle*
The core issue is that DDD() is recursively calling
itself through HHH(DDD), which would lead to infinite
recursion if allowed to continue. HHH detects this
pattern and predicts that DDD() would not halt on its own.
Therefore, HHH correctly reports that DDD() does not
halt, even though in the actual execution, it halts
because HHH steps in and prevents the infinite recursion.
*ChatGPT analysis of HHH(DDD)* https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:03:49 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,779 |