XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/2/2025 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > Op 02.aug.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:   
   >> On 8/1/2025 8:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>> Olcott, give it a fucking rest: what you are banging on about has   
   >>> nothing   
   >>> to do with the Halting Problem.   
   >>>   
   >>> Damon, stop feeding Olcott: you are just talking over each other at this   
   >>> point.   
   >>>   
   >>> /Flibble   
   >>   
   >> Every attempt to refute me has been counter-factual.   
   >> The survival of life an Earth depends on a correct   
   >> understanding of truth.   
   >>   
   >> The Tarski Undefinability theorem that incorrectly   
   >> "proves" that a Boolean True(L,x) predicate cannot   
   >> be consistently defined relies on the same structure   
   >> as the conventional HP proofs.   
   >>   
   >> Because of this humans have no perfectly objective   
   >> way to discern truth from very well crafted lies,   
   >> thus the well crafted lies win.   
   >>   
   >> Richard is still trying to get away with saying that   
   >> the repeating pattern shown below does not exist.   
   >>   
   >> void DDD()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>    return;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> HHH simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >> that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)   
   >>   
   >   
   > As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
      
   I am not going to repeat all of the lines of my proof   
   every single time. That I presented all of the lines   
   of my proof once is sufficient to refute your claims   
   of no evidence.   
      
   > A finite recursion is not a non-halting behaviour.   
   >   
      
   Finite recursion by itself is not non-halting behavior.   
   Finite recursion that correctly detects a pattern that   
   would infinitely repeat *IS NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR*   
      
   typedef void (*ptr)();   
      
   int Simulate(ptr x)   
   {   
      x();   
      return 1;   
   }   
      
   void Infinite_Recursion()   
   {   
      Simulate(Infinite_Recursion);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   HHH detects the behavior pattern where Infinite_Recursion()   
   cannot possibly reach its own final halt state and it does   
   this in finite steps.   
      
   > You are trying to get away with the idea that if you close your eyes for   
   > the halting behaviour, it does not exists.   
      
   Not at all. I repeatedly challenge you to show how   
   DDD emulated by HHH halts and you change the subject.   
   Changing the subject this way is known as the strawman error.   
      
   A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman)   
   is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument   
   different from the one actually under discussion,   
   while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man   
      
   > The simulating HHH aborts before it reaches the final halt state of the   
   > simulated HHH that has the same code to abort, so it does not see it and   
   > pretends that it does not exist.   
   >   
      
   Each HHH aborts as soon as it has seen one recursive simulation.   
   We could change this to each HHH aborts after it sees N recursive   
   simulations. In every case the outer HHH meets its criteria first.   
   If this HHH waited for the next, they would all wait for the next   
   and no abort would ever occur.   
      
   > Changing the meaning of the words will not help you to find the truth.   
      
   I don't change the meaning of words. I correct the erroneous   
   ambiguity of the meaning or words. I also correct the definitions   
   of the meaning of words when these definitions directly contradict   
   other definitions.   
      
   The input to a halt decider specifies its behavior.   
   Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the   
   domain of every halt decider.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)