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

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; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer