Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- CHALLENGE
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 18. Jun 2025, 16:10:42
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <102uktj$369b2$8@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/18/2025 3:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-17 14:15:33 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/17/2025 4:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-16 18:36:47 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/16/2025 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-15 20:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/15/2025 2:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:44:30 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 6/14/2025 6:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-13 17:59:23 +0000, André G. Isaak said:
>
On 2025-06-13 09:36, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2025 6:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
Nothing is permanent. But you can (and to some extent do) maintan a web
page as long as you need it for usenet discussions.
>
I want people to be able to validate my work 50 years after I am dead.
A web-page will not work for this.
>
Usenet is dying. Do you seriously think it will be around in 50 years?
>
Some of its contents might still be on some web page.
>
Storing every text message ever written seems
to take < 1.0 TB.
>
Doesn't matter. Unlikely that anyone would even notice that you wanted
a validation of something.
>
>
Anyone with sufficient technical competence carefully
studying what I have said that is not so biased against
my position that they can actually pay complete attention
will understand that I am correct.
>
Nope, only someone as mentally deranged as yourself would believe your lies.
>
>
If this was not the case then there could be a correct
rebuttal to what I am saying now. Instead of any correct
rebuttal all that has been provided is persistently
false assumptions.
>
There has been, but it has appearently been over you head.
>
You have demonstarted this by making this claim many times, and the errors you have ignored pointed out.
>
>
A termination analyzer / partial halt decider is
required to report on the behavior of the sequence
of state transitions that its input actually specifies.
It is not allowed to report on anything else.
>
>
Right, and that sequence of states spedified by that input, is the sequence of states actually generated by that program when run,
>
int main()
{
DDD(); // calls HHH(DDD) that is not allowed to report
} // on the behavior of its caller.
>
Richard pretends to not understand that a function
that calls another function is not itself the actual
input to the function that it calls.
>
Richard does not pretend. You do but it does not work.
>
In the followeing code fragment the identifier appears twice.
First it is defined. Later it is used to specify that the
argument to that function shall be a pointer to the function
where the call is. Using that pointer the called function
can access the calling function.
>
main() is not part of the input to HHH(DDD) thus
HHH cannot possibly see its actual caller.
>
The main quited above does not call HHH so its actual caller is
elsewhere and your "this" is wrong.
>
In other words you don't know as much as any CS graduate
that knows that a function cannot examine its caller.
Your "in other words" is an attempt of a straw man deception.
int main()
{
HHH(DDD);
HERE: goto HERE;
}
So then try to show how HHH(DDD) can report on the
behavior of its caller: main()
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
