XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
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 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:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> 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 '
