Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 21:09 +0800, wij wrote:

On Mon, 2024-11-11 at 13:33 +0200, Mikko wrote:

OP says nothing aobut how emulationg termination analyzers are supposed to
work. I think that is OK. Philosophers may have opinions about that but
the question is not really relevant for theorieticsl or practical purposes.

 Firstly, the HP is about the H that (If stated in C-function form, instead of
TM) that:
 H(P,P)=1 iff P(P) halts.
H(P,P)=0 iff P(P) does not halts.
   > Astray from this, it is not about the Halting Problem. HP is (almost) about a
real machine, whatever logic,formal proof,philosophy,... is not decisive.
 olcott is a psychotic liar. he reads lots of technical terms and would post
whatever he searched for you to head-ache (that is one of his trick), and 
pretending he is a learned genius. He simply knows nothing.
E.g 'halt' --> no precise meaning
'Godel's theorem' --> no (significant) contents
'completeness' --> no (significant) contents
utm386 --> He can't construct TM for "1+2=3". He think his 'utm386' is an OS.
C-language --> He needs debugger to understand, and took the complied assembly> as 'totology' of his proof.
.... too many to list
Most of all, olcott does not even understand the logical-IF !!!
 So, don't bother. olcott is a psychotic liar.
 

Anyone who wants to present or sell an emulating termination analyzer should
tell what that particular analyzer actually does.

 That's right.
But, in POO logic, olcott is always correct... just not interesting. No need 
to argue (I though you and others engaged him for reasons).
 The HP simply does not exist. POOH cannot perform the function as stated above.
 

 I just think about what I said about olcott, all symptoms might also applicable
to average people, so, 'idiot' (too stupid) may be more truthful.