Re: Analysis of Flibble’s Latest: Detecting vs. Simulating Infinite Recursion ZFC

On 5/23/25 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/23/2025 6:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> writes:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

[...]

And the big picture is that this can be done because false is the
correct halting decision for some halting computations.  He has said
this explicitly (as I have posted before) but he has also explained it
in words:
>
| When-so-ever a halt decider correctly determines that its input would
| never halt unless forced to halt by this halt decider this halt
| decider has made a correct not-halting determination.

>
Hmm.  I don't read that the way you do.  Did I miss something?
>
It assumes that the input is a non-halting computation ("its input
would never halt") and asserts that, in certain circumstances,
his mythical halt decider correctly determines that the input
is non-halting.
>
When his mythical halt decider correctly determines that its input
doesn't halt, it has made a correct non-halting determination.
It's just a tautology.

>
It would be a tautology but for the "unless..." part.  It does not make
the determination that it does not halt.  It determines that it would
not halt were it not for the fact that the decider (a simulation) in
fact halts it.
>

 Still a tautology.
When the simulated input specifies a non-halting sequence
of configurations as proven by the fact that DD simulated
by HHH would never stop running unless aborted,
THIS TOO IS A TAUTOLOGY.

But only *IF* the decider DOES correctly simulate it, which means it can't abort it.
Sorry, the condition needs to be ALWAYS true, even after it is used, to be used.

 Fools here want to ignore the that the input to HHH(DD)
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations and
instead have HHH report on some other basis.
 int main()
{
   DD(); // HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller
}       // Thus HHH cannot report on the behavior of the
         // direct execution of DD();
 Most of my reviewers are screwball trolls not giving
a rat's ass for truth.
 

And you are just proving that you are a fool that doesn't know what you are talking about.
You admit that you HHH and DD are not programs, and thus everything you say about them under the guise that they are programs is just a LIE.
That you don't understand this just shows your stupidity.