Sujet : Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 09. Jun 2025, 15:55:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1026slo$j3rp$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…