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

Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott:

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.

And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It aborts before it can see how the program ends.

There are more steps, I don't want to overwhelm you.
 

Yes. For some incorrect reason the programmer of HHH assumes that the simulation of HHH does not halt, when he knows that HHH does halt.
He does not see that these to assumptions contradict each other.