XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
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)
It seems you just like demonstrating your ignorance of the meaning of
the words, probably because you DECIDED that you wanted to be ignorant
so you could make up you lies without the truth being able to bother
your dead brain.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
