XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 21.jul.2025 om 15:03 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/21/2025 1:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> 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 '> Since these presumptions are never happen, all conclusions based on it   
   >> are invalid as well.   
   >   
   > I did not tell any bot that the input to HHH(DDD)   
   > does not terminate and they all figured out on their   
   > own that the input to HHH(DDD) does not terminate   
   > because it specifies recursive emulation.   
   >   
      
   You gave it contradictory information. You told it that it simulates   
   until it detects non-halting behaviour. You also told it that it aborts   
   and returns 0. HHH cannot at the same time return 0 and show   
   non-termination behaviour when simulated.   
      
   With invalid and contradictory starting points, any conclusion becomes   
   useless.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)