XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/19/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:   
   >   
   >> That is wrong. It is, as you say, very obvious that HHH cannot simulate   
   >> DDD past the call to HHH. You just draw the wrong conclusion from it.   
   >> (Aside: what "seems" to you will convince no one. You can just call   
   >> everybody dishonest. Also, they are not "your reviewers".)   
   >>   
   >   
   > For the purposes of this discussion this is the   
   > 100% complete definition of HHH. It is the exact   
   > same one that I give to all the chat bots.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   So, the only HHH that meets your definition is the HHH that never   
   detects the pattern and aborts, and thus never returns.   
      
   The problem is that once you define the pattern of DDD calling HHH(DDD)   
   and that HHH simulating the input to a second layer call of HHH(DDD) as   
   non-halting, it no longer is, as then DDD() is a halting program.   
      
   Your problem is you refuse to actually understand what your words   
   actualy mean, things like "Program", "Non-Halting", and "Correct" seem   
   to be foreign to you.   
      
   >   
   > I have always proved that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD   
   > https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf   
      
      
   Right, but not that the pattern is non-halting, or that HHH CORRECTLY   
   (which requires completely) its input.   
      
   >   
   > I have also always proved that DDD correctly simulated by   
   > HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final   
   > halt state.   
      
   No, you have only proved that for the HHH the never aborts and thus   
   never answers.   
      
   Since that is a different PROGRAM DDD then the program that the aborting   
   HHH sees, it is irrelevent.   
      
   >   
   > *The following analysis cannot be correctly refuted*   
   > https://chatgpt.com/share/687aa4c2-b814-8011-9e7d-b85c03b291eb   
   >   
      
   Sure it can, as you said:   
      
   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.   
      
      
   But the pattern it detects is NOT proof of "non-terminating behavior" as   
   it also exists in the terminating behavior of the correctly simulated   
   DDD as done by HHH1.   
      
   Since you start with a false premise, the argument is just unsound, as   
   you have shown yourself to be.'   
      
   It also fails by the implied self-contradictory definition of "input"   
   you use, as you first imply that "the input" doesn't include the code of   
   HHH, so the "DDD" is a single constant input for the discussion, but you   
   also imply that it is part of "the input" so that HHH can simulate it.   
      
   That by itself makes the arguement invalid.   
      
   That this has been pointed out to you many times and you still make the   
   error means that you have shown that you either don't care about what is   
   the truth or are unable to learn the meaning of these basics terms due   
   to mental defect.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)