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

On 6/11/2025 9:34 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 11 Jun 2025 08:55:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/11/2025 7:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jun.2025 om 19:25 schreef olcott:

On 6/10/2025 3:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:39 schreef olcott:

On 6/9/2025 5:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

 

Indeed, it shows that simulation is not the right way to try to
refute the proof of the halting theorem, because a simulator will
never be able to simulate itself correctly up to the end.

That is the interesting part to me. Can somebody formalise or generalise
this statement?
 

It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-terminating input to be
simulated up to its non-existent end.
 

It is even more stupid to ignore the halting part of the input (with
a premature abort) and claim it is not halting.

 It waiting forever is not long enough (and it is) then your idea about
"premature abort" is incorrect.

 Running one more cycle is enough to see the simulated abort (unless you
change the input to another input specifying another program that needs
again another cycle. That other input is only in your dream. The input
specified in Halt7.c is the input we discuss.
 

So you aren't bright enough to understand that infinite recursion does
not halt on its own.
HHH waits until it sees that its input calls the same function with the
same parameters twice in sequence with no conditional branch inbetween
the beginning of DDD and its call to HHH(DDD). It does not matter that
there are conditional branch instructions in HHH because they cannot be
reached and none of them could possibly enable DDD simulated by HHH to
reach its own "return" statement final halt state.

 What does HHH(HHH) return?
 

I have told you this many times and you just aren't bright enough to
understand. That you are ignorant DOES NOT MAKE ME INCORRECT, IT MAKES
YOU INCORRECT.

It makes you bad at explaining.
 

 I may be bad at explaining, that does not make me incorrect.