Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/22/2025 1:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

 On 22/05/2025 18:13, olcott wrote:

On 5/22/2025 11:59 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 22/05/2025 17:45, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

You don't have a clue:

>
Righty-ho.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Proof_concept

>
Is it this bit you mean?
>
There are programs (interpreters) that simulate the execution of whatever source code they are given. Such programs can demonstrate that a program does halt if this is the case: the interpreter itself will eventually halt its simulation, which shows that the original program halted. However, an interpreter will not halt if its input program does not halt, so this approach cannot solve the halting problem as stated; it does not successfully answer "does not halt" for programs that do not halt.
>

>
*The part that the actual link links to*

 You like that bit, huh?
 I like this bit.

In other words you are too scatterbrained to keep
focused on a single point until closure is achieved.
When you try to define an input D to simulating termination
analyzer H that actually does the opposite of whatever value
that H returns you find that this
KEY ELEMENT OF THE CONVENTIONAL HALTING
PROBLEM PROOFS CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer