Re: The clueless are commenting on SHDs --- tautologies

On 5/29/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/29/2025 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 7:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/29/25 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/29/2025 12:11 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> 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.

>
There's no call for such vulgarities, here.
>
In his post here, Richard was 100% right, as he is with virtually
everything he posts here.

>
It is not right that I have to correct his false
assumptions many dozens of times before he first
notices that I ever said anything at all.

>
WHAT is the error you need to correct?
>
You just keep on repeating your incorrect statement that you can't show any evidence to back up
>

>

I don't like the way he expresses himself so
frequently, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.
>
Being right is not a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of holding to
the truth.  PO fails continually to do this.  It seems you are little
better, at least in matters mathematical.
>

/Flibble

>

>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
>
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 you need to start with a program H and a program D, which you don't.
>

>
No I don't you jackass liar.
>

>
In other words, you've (once again) admitted you're not working on the halting problem, as that is about algorithms / programs.
>

 All you have is deflection jackass.
 

You're the one who is deflecting away from the fact that he's not working on the halting problem.
If you would just be honest about that people would stop bothering you.