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

On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)

>
No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with algorithms,

>
That is stupidly counter-factual.
>

>
That you think that shows that

>
My understanding is deeper than yours.
No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.

 But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,

There you go.

which is what is meant in this context. 

It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.

And because your HHH does not work with the description/specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not working on the halting problem.
 

HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
There are more steps, I don't want to overwhelm you.

If you would just quit lying about that people might actually take you seriously.
 

The mistakes are only on your side.

you fundamentally don't understand the problem and further proves you're not working on the halting problem.
>
If you would just be honest about that fact people would stop bothering you.

  

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