Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>
*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>

>
>
So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>
Where do you get that LIE from?
>

>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
>
I am no so stupid that I require a complete
simulation of a non-terminating input.

>
Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>

>
It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH
to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.

 Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.

DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own "return" statement final halt state. This by itself
*is* complete proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-halting behavior.
That you don't understand the truth of this is only your
own ignorance and nothing else.

 DDD terminates,
so it cannot be correctly recognized to mach a correct non-halting
pattern. As you have not described the pattern in suffient detail
it is not possible to determine whether the error is in the pattern
or in the recognition or both. Anyway, you have not presented neither
any proof of the correctness of the pattern nor any proof of the
correctness of the recognition.
 

Unless you are very good at software engineering

 I am.
 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer