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

On 6/10/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott:

On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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.
>

>
This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence
on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer
HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH
the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH()
would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this
is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence.

 But the abort is coded in the input.

I corrected you on this too many times. Stopping running
is not halting. Only reaching a final halt state is halting.
That I had to tell you this several times seems to prove
that you are dishonest.

Dreaming of a HHH that does not abort is not a valid argument, and certainly not showing technical competence.
That you cannot see that the code to abort changes the behaviour of the program is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence.
  It is a verified fact that the simulated program contains the code to abort and therefore specifies a halting program.
Ignoring that input is just a stupid error of the programmer.
IF have told you that many times and you could not come up with a counter argument.
It seems over your head that adding code to a program may change its behaviour.

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