Re: Respect [was: The halting problem as defined is a category error]

Op 19.jul.2025 om 23:18 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

>
You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott doesn't show
respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown any respect
back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands the concept
of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.
>
If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and learning,
and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays contempt for
them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is
a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct
him, something that you've sensibly given up.
>

 Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
clear.

Chat-boxes prove that reasoning with invalid presumptions lead to invalid conclusions.

 I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
pleasure of gaslighting:
 <input to chat bots>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}
 Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
</input to chat bots>

We see the invalid presumption in the input. There is no non-termination behaviour in the input. It completely depends on what HHH does. There is only non-termination behaviour when you prove that HHH does not abort, but starts an infinite recursion.
So you are feeding the chatbox with the invalid presumption that there is non-termination behaviour. That is not a conclusion of the chatbox, but the input for its reasoning.

 Every chatbot figures out on its own that HHH
correctly rejects DDD as non-terminating because
the input to HHH(DDD) specifies recursive simulation.
 

Yes, invalid presumptions lead to invalid conclusions, as this chatbox proves.