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

Op 21.jul.2025 om 15:03 schreef olcott:

On 7/21/2025 1:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2025 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

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.

You can see that I did not even hint at non
termination of the input

??? We read that '... until it detects non-termination pattern' and 'When HHH detects such a pattern ...' before the '</input'
Since these presumptions are never happen, all conclusions based on it are invalid as well.

 I did not tell any bot that the input to HHH(DDD)
does not terminate and they all figured out on their
own that the input to HHH(DDD) does not terminate
because it specifies recursive emulation.
 

You gave it contradictory information. You told it that it simulates until it detects non-halting behaviour. You also told it that it aborts and returns 0. HHH cannot at the same time return 0 and show non-termination behaviour when simulated.
With invalid and contradictory starting points, any conclusion becomes useless.