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

On 6/11/25 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/11/2025 7:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jun.2025 om 19:27 schreef olcott:

On 6/10/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott:

On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott:

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
that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.

>
And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It aborts before it can see how the program ends.
>

>
This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence
on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer
HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH
the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH()
would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this
is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence.

>
But the abort is coded in the input.

>
I corrected you on this too many times. Stopping running
is not halting. Only reaching a final halt state is halting.
That I had to tell you this several times seems to prove
that you are dishonest.

>
You have been corrected on this many timed by many people.
Failing to reach the final state because of a premature abort

 There is no premature abort you are just stupid.

Any abort before reaching the end is premature, unless it can be shown that the ACTUAL COMPLETE emulation of this exact input (so it call on the decider that did the abort) would never halt.
Since this DDD when run, will halt (as you have admitted), any abort was premature,
Sorry, it seems you just don't know what you are talking about,

 

is no counter argument.
It cannot be, because the verified fact is that the input specifies a halting program, but your HHH fails to see that part of the input by the premature abort.
If you are not dishonest or stubborn, you must have a mental problem to learn from your errors.
>
>