XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
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 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
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.
>>
>>> 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.
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.
> 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?
>
>>
>> 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.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
