XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
On 7/20/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/25 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, got a source for that definition.
>>>>
>>>> Per you favorite sourse:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>>>>
>>>> The difference between a Halt Decider and a Terminatation Analyzer is:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which
>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program
>>>> halts for each input.
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thus HHH(Infinite_Loop) is correct for every
>>> input that Infinite_Loop has.
>>>
>>
>>
>> But the Termination Analyzer is HHH, not HHH(Infinte_Loop).
>>
>> HHH(Infinite_Loop) is just a single invocation of the Analyzer.
>>
>> To be a correct Termination Analyzer, HHH needs to give the correct
>> answer for *ALL* calls HHH(x) for all possible values of x as
>> representations of programs (not just of Infinite_Loop)
>>
>
> evaluation of a given program halts for each input.
>
> evaluation of a given program (such as Infinite_Loop)
> halts for each input (all zero of them).
>
Nope, because a Termination Analyzer needs to answer about *ANY* Program
reperesented with an input.
It was right about THAT input, but that isn't *ALL*
You are just lying to yourself about what a Termination Analyzer is
because you just don't understand the meaning of the words.
Sorry, provide a reliable source for you definition, or you are just
admitting that you world is all just make believe and thus a lie.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
