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

Op 20.jul.2025 om 16:08 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2025 2:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 05:20 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/19/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>

>
They have done no such thing, because they can't
>
Since yoiu feed them lies, all you have done is shown that you think lies are valid logic.
>

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:

>
Because you are just too stupid.
>
How is the "pattern" that HHH detects a non-halting pattern, when non- halting is DEFINED by the behavior of the directly executed machine, and the pattern you are thinking of exists in the execution of the DDD that halts because it was built on the same HHH you claim is correct to return 0,
>
Thus, your claim *IS* just a lie, and you shows your ignorance by saying you can't undetstand how it is one.
>

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

>
BECAUSE YOU LIE TO THEM, and a prime training parameter is to give an answer the user is apt to like, and thus will tend to just accept lies and errors provided.
>

>
I only defined the hypothetical possibility of a simulating
termination analyzer. This cannot possibly be a lie. They
figured out all the rest on their own.

>
No you told it that a correct simulating termination analyser could be presumed. Which is an invalid presumption, because it has been proven that it cannot.
>

 Unlike a halt decider that must be correct
on every input a simulating termination analyzer
only needs be correct on at least one input.

As usual only an invalid claim without evidence.

 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}
 void Infinite_Loop2()
{
L1: goto L3;
L2: goto L1;
L3: goto L2;
}
 HHH correctly determines the halt status of
the above three functions.

Irrelevant, because the case we are talking about has neither an infinite loop, nor an infinite recursion.
HHH must simulate DDD that calls HHH. If HHH halts, then there is only a finite recursion:
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
   printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");
}
HHH decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which is incorrect.

 

>

All you are doing is showing you don't understand how Artificiial Intelegence actualy works, showing your Natural Stupidity.

>
That they provided all of the reasoning why DDD correctly
simulated by HHH does not halt proves that they do have
the functional equivalent of human understanding.

>
The other error is the presumption that a simulation that does not reach the end of the simulation is evidence for non-termination.

 *Incorrect paraphrase*
Halting is defined as reaching a final halt state.

Yes and non-haltig is defined as never reaching the haltstate when running undisturbed. When a computer is switched off, or a simulation aborted, before a final halt state is reached, there is no evidence for non-halting behaviour of the program.

 if the state is final, the machine just stops and continues no more.
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/38228/what-is-halting
 When it is correctly predicted that
an infinite simulation of the input
cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state then the
input is non-halting.

But when it is incorrectly predicted, the program fails. This is the case when HHH aborts the program that is specified in the input, which has the same abort code as HHH itself. The input specifies a halting program, as proven by other simulations, but HHH fails to reach this final halt state. This is evidence that HHH is not the right tool for this input.

 

It is not. An incomplete simulation is at best an indication that other tools are needed to determine non-halting behaviour.
>

 You cannot possibly coherently explain the details of this
because what you just said in incorrect. Exactly what are
the "other tools" that you are referring to a magic wand?

In this case it is the reasoning that the input specifies a final halt state, proven by other tools, like world-class simulators and direct execution. For other inputs we may need to use other tools, but it is very well possible that for some inputs no such tool exists.
It is a sign of bad reading capability that I have to repeat that so many times and you still do not understand it.

 

>

>
That everyone here denies what every first year CS student
would understand seems to prove that they know that they
are liars.
>

>
>
Even first year CS students understand that false presumptions lead to false conclusions. That is the only thing the chat box shows.Yet they recognize that recursive simulation is a

non-halting behavior pattern similar to infinite
recursion. Termination analyzers correctly predict
what the behavior of infinite simulation would be.

Sorry, the non-halting behaviour and the infinite recursion exists only in your dream. The HHH that aborts only sees a finite recursion, because the simulated HHH has the same code to (incorrectly) abort and halt.
Dreams are no substitute for facts, nor a mathematical proof.