Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker Maximalism FULL_TRACE

Am Wed, 09 Jul 2025 07:54:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/9/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2025 om 17:03 schreef olcott:

On 7/8/2025 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 20:40 schreef olcott:

On 7/7/2025 2:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/6/2025 4:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/6/2025 12:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

It is really weird that you are calling a 100% complete concrete
specification "a low level of abstraction".

Those are opposites.

Thus HHH(DD) does correctly determine that the halting problem's
counter-example input *DOES NOT HALT*
That you say this is "valueless" seems quite disingenuous.

It is valueless; DDD does halt.

It is just like you are saying that all huge things are always
very tiny. The high level of abstraction of C is not any low level
of abstraction.

Your HHH is more concrete than just talking about a halt decider.

Not at all. Anyone should instantly see that no HHH can possibly
ever return to any simulated DD.

Yes, HHH is not a decider.

100% complete proof that you cannot understand remains 100% complete
proof.

Not convincing.

As usual no rebuttal, but claims without evidence.
Many errors have been pointed out in your '100% proof', but you ignore

One of these "errors" was that HHH cannot simulate itself at all.

...past the call to itself, which you vehemently agree to. Like this one:
void main() {
  HHH(HHH, HHH);
  printf("hello world");
}

I proved my statement in the part of the quotation that you deleted.
Closing your eyes for a proof does not make it disappear. It would be
childish to say that.

I stop at your first big mistake because I found that my reviewers
has a very hard time paying any attention at all to a single point. I
can make the same single point to Richard 500 times and he never notices
that I said it even once.

He just disagrees with it. You are the one who ignores every
contradiction.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.