Re: Bad faith and dishonesty

On 5/29/2025 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

*WE CAN STAY ON THIS ONE POINT FOREVER IF YOU LIKE*
It is a tautology that any input D to simulating termination
analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
 

As this is repeating a previously refuted point, let's follow this and pick up where we left off:
On 5/29/2025 4:20 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 5/29/2025 3:05 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/29/2025 4:00 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/29/2025 2:53 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>> On 5/29/2025 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>> On 5/29/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>>> On 5/29/2025 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>> On 5/29/2025 2:08 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 >>>>>>>> On 29/05/2025 20:02, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2025 1:40 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
 >>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2025 19:14, olcott wrote:
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> <snip>
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>>> It is a tautology that any input D to termination
 >>>>>>>>>>> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>>>>> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>> But in making that claim you assume that you correctly know the termination behaviour of D.
 >>>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>>> All that H needs to know is that D
 >>>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> But it *doesn't* know that.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>> You forgot to address my substantive point.
 >>>>>>>>
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Not at all. I have been doing this for a very long time.
 >>>>>>> Even when we go exactly one point at a time it takes people
 >>>>>>> here several years to begin to address that one point.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> It is a tautology that any input D
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> i.e. a description of algorithm D
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
 >>>>>
 >>>>> *Description*
 >>>>> The above function does some arithmetic stuff
 >>>>>
 >>>>> *Specification*
 >>>>> _sum()
 >>>>> [000021b3] 55             push ebp
 >>>>> [000021b4] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
 >>>>> [000021b6] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
 >>>>> [000021b9] 03450c         add eax,[ebp+0c]
 >>>>> [000021bc] 5d             pop ebp
 >>>>> [000021bd] c3             ret
 >>>>> Size in bytes:(0011) [000021bd]
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> "Description" is a technical term which means a way to encode everything about the algorithm in question.
 >>>>
 >>>> And for algorithm D, that description consists of the fixed code of the function D, the fixed code of the function H, and the fixed code of everything that H calls down to the OS level.
 >>>>
 >>>
 >>> A simulating termination analyzer must PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR.
 >>> This means that it must predict what the behavior WOULD BE if
 >>
 >> the algorithm described / specified by the input is executed directly, as per the requirements:
 >>
 >
 > The requirements contradict reality.
 >
Are you saying that no H exists that can meet these requirements?
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
Failure to respond within one hour of your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record admission that in fact no H exists that satisfies the above requirements, which is *exactly* what the halting problem proofs prove.