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

On 6/9/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/25 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.
>

 In other words, you consider "Definitions" to be counter-factual.
 

There is no definition that says a halt decider /
termination analyzer takes an algorithm as its input.
This is stupidly incorrect.
In the case of Turing machine halt deciders and my
HHH termination analyzer the input is a finite string
that specifies an exact sequence of configurations.
Not at all exactly the same thing as an algorithm.

Of course you do, as you consider FACTS to be counter-factual,
 Soory, you have sunk your reputation.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer