Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point

On 6/10/25 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2025 6:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 16:24:58 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:54 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:34 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:06 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 10:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 6:55 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)

>
No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with algorithms,

>
That is stupidly counter-factual.
>

>
That you think that shows that

>
My understanding is deeper than yours.
No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input.

>
But they take a description/specification of an algorithm,

>
There you go.
>

which is what is meant in this context.

>
It turns out that this detail makes a big difference.
>

And because your HHH does not work with the description/ specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not working on the halting problem.
>

>
HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions

>
>
Which you stated only includes the instructions of the function DDD on multiple occasions (see below),

>
It is proven that you are a liar by the part of
my reply that you erased.
>
HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions
that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.
>

>
Then you admit that that finite string includes the machine code of the function DDD, the machine code of the function HHH, and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, and that address 000015c3 is part of DDD?

>
I admit that:
(a) DDD correctly simulated by HHH,
(b) the directly executed DDD() and
(c) the directly executed HHH()
WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS
HHH ABORTS ITS SIMULATION OF DDD.
>
Because this is true it derives conclusive proof
that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting
sequence of configurations.
>
That people here disagree with self-evident truth
seems to indicate that people here are liars.
>
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
proposition is a proposition that is known to be true
by understanding its meaning without proof...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
>

>
>
In other words, a non-answer.  I'll take that as a no.
>
And since your HHH doesn't work with algorithms (or their description / specification) as you've admitted, you're not working on the halting problem.
>

>
You are far too sloppy in your interpretation of the
meaning of words. Also when I do provide an answer
you simply ignore it.

>
>
Replying with something other than "yes" or "no" to a yes or no question is not an answer.
>

>
By replying to a yes or no question with the full
and complete justification forces the respondent
to look more deeply into these things than simply
dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.

>
But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
>

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

>
No, you don't. You only force them to point out an error in your
actual reasoning, which they have aleady done. They have also
proven that the actual ingnorant one you.
>

 No reviewer has ever pointed out any error in my actual
reasoning. Most attempts to point to any error changed
the words that I said and then rebutted these changed words.
I point out Richard's errors hundreds of times and he never
hears a single word of my corrections.

Sure we have, you are just too stupid to understand them.
Note, I don't "change your words", I point out that you are not asking the question you claim to be asking. That your exact words are a semantically incorrect criteria for the question, and what the actual answer to the real question is.
That fact that you have to begin with lies and semantic nonsense just shows how bad your system is.

 It seems that some of my reviewers simply don't know enough
about computer science or C programming. They don't know
that they don't know enough, so ignorance squared.
 

No, it is YOU who is ignorant, and so ignorant you can't see your ignorance.