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

On 5/29/25 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.
 

Why not, since that is what the problem states?
In the context of the Halting Problem, and Computation Theory in general, the fundamental unit of discussion are informally called "Programs" (as that is the common term that people use) and more formally called "Compuations" which ARE entities that include ALL the code they use and whose behavior is only dependent on the input they are given.
All you are doing is proving you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are talking about.
Sorry, but you have sunk yourself into that lake of fire by your own words.