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

On 6/9/2025 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:33 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/9/2025 11:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/9/2025 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:

>
By replying to a yes or no question with the full
and complete justification forces the respondent
to look more deeply into these things than simply
dismissing a view out-of-hand without review.

>
But by not including the yes or no you dishonestly dodge the question.
>

>
Not at all. Not in the least little bit. By forcing my
reviewers to point out an error in my actual reasoning
I prove who is the actual ignorant one.

>
And since your reasoning is that the input to HHH(DDD) only includes the code of the function DDD as you've stated below,

 *In other words you are too stupid to understand this*
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
 *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
 

Repeat of original point, previously refuted (see below)
This constitutes your admission that every counterpoint made since then is *correct*, including but not limited to:
* The input to HHH(DDD) consists of only the code of the function DDD
* Halt deciders / termination analyzers accept as input the description / specification of an algorithm
* You're not actually working on the halting problem as your HHH doesn't work with the above
* You dishonestly dodge direct yes or no questions
On 6/8/2025 11:08 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, but you HHH does not by your own admission: