Sujet : Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point
De : dbush.mobile (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dbush)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 09. Jun 2025, 16:06:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1026ta5$ipgg$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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?
…