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

On 6/11/2025 9:42 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 09:11:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:

 

The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its *simulated
"return" instruction final halt state*

 So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
 Where do you get that LIE from?

 That is what HHH does.
 

I am no so stupid that I require a complete simulation of a
non-terminating input.

 Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
 

It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH to correctly
recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.

 Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.

 DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state. This by itself *is* complete proof that the
input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior.

 It is also proof that HHH doesn't terminate.

 The fact that HHH reaches its own "return" statement
final halt state proves that you are incorrect.