Re: The clueless are commenting on SHDs

On 5/29/25 12:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 11:30 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 28 May 2025 21:28:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

On 5/28/25 2:50 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

Halting an SHD due to analysis is NOT the same as the program being
analysed halting.  Infinite recursion detected through analysis (rather
than running out of simulation resources) DOES NOT MEAN HALTING as far
as the program being analysed is concerned, IT MEANS NON-HALTING.
>
/Flibble

>
And what makes it different?
>
Remember. Halting is about the actual behavior of the program that was
being analysize. That running doesn't have the SHD "aborted", as nothing
is looking at it, it is just running.
>
You have the same error as PO, that you are confusing the actual running
of the program, with the partial simulation done by its decider.

>
The only person fucking confused is you, mate.
>
/Flibble

 I have never been able to tell if he is just dishonest
or his ADD prevents him from remembering things that he
has been told dozens of times.
 

Because the truth is just to advanced for you.
Of course the ignorant can't understand those that know what they are doing, especially if the ignorant insist on staying ignorant.
Sorry, the fact that you ADMIT that you are just lying about what you are doing shows how stupid you actually are.
You ADMIT you don't follow the meaninf of the words as Terms-of-Art, and thus are LYING when you try to use them in the art.
You ADMIT that you objects don't meet the basic miniumum requrements to be used in the cases you are using them, thus admtting that your argument is just category error.
Of course, because you think you have the right to change the rules, which you don't, you are just admitting you don't even know HOW to do what you claims.