XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/21/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2025 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/25 8:45 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(Infinite_Loop).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH correctly reports on the halt status
>>>> for every input that Infinite_Loop takes,
>>>
>>> So?
>>>
>>>> all zero of them. This proves that HHH is
>>>> a termination analyzer for Infinite_Loop
>>>> even if HHH is wrong on everything else.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, because a Termination Analyzer needs to answer about *ANY*
>>> Program reperesented with an input.
>>>
>> *No that is merely your ADD*
>> determine whether the evaluation of a given program
>> halts for each input.
>>
>>
>
> No, it is YOU who is altering it. I gave a reference, that points out
> that it is the same as the halting problem, only about all possible
> inputs, not just one given one.
>
*I quoted that from your above reference so it must be ADD*
On 7/20/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> In computer science, termination analysis is program
> analysis which attempts to
> *determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts*
> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program
> computes a total function.
None of the people that are creating termination analyzers
have ever made one that works on all programs. They still
call their work termination analyzers.
> WHere is the source of your fantasy?
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
