XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 02.aug.2025 om 17:03 schreef olcott:   
   > 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.   
      
   As usual repeated incorrect claims without evidence. There never has   
   been a proof.   
      
   >   
   >> 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*   
      
   As usual irrelevant remarks.   
   There is no such pattern. There is only a finite recursion, after which   
   the program halts. That is what the code of the input specifies. That   
   HHH does not see it, does not change the specification.   
   The code specifies a finite recursion, followed by an abort by the   
   simulated HHH. HHH does not se that, because of a premature abort.   
      
   >   
   > typedef void (*ptr)();   
   >   
   > int Simulate(ptr x)   
   > {   
   >    x();   
   >    return 1;   
   > }   
   >   
   > void Infinite_Recursion()   
   > {   
   >    Simulate(Infinite_Recursion);   
   >    return;   
   > }   
      
      
   Again, irrelevant examples.   
   The input for HHH is more like:   
      
   void Finite_Recursion () {   
      static int N = 5;   
      if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion ();   
      printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");   
   }   
      
   >   
   > HHH detects the behavior pattern where Infinite_Recursion()   
   > cannot possibly reach its own final halt state and it does   
   > this in finite steps.   
   >   
      
      
   But HHH does not recognise that there is only a finite recursion in the   
   simulated HHH, because it does not keep track of the internal state of   
   the simulated HHH and its conditional branch instructions.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
      
   Yes, you keep closing your eyes for the errors in HHH and that it not   
   possible to correct them.   
   You also use the strange logic that if no correction exists, HHH must be   
   correct.   
      
   >   
   > 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   
      
   Why are you using straw man fallacies, if you know that the have no   
   value? That looks very dishonest.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   But only a finite recursion, where correct simulaters show that for the   
   exact same input only one more recursion is needed to reach the final   
   halt state.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Only, if you change the input. If you increase N, but use the same   
   input, then we see that it reaches the final halt state.   
   Of, cours, with this other new HHH, we can construct another new DDD,   
   for which this HHH will fail to. The only think you do is proving that   
   it is impossible to create an HHH that is correct for all possible inputs.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   No, you change the meaning of the words.   
   A finite recursion is not non-halting behaviour.   
      
   >   
   > The input to a halt decider specifies its behavior.   
   > Directly executed Turing machines are outside of the   
   > domain of every halt decider.   
   >   
      
   Yes, but when the input specifies a finite recursion, followed by a   
   final halt state, HHH is incorrect when it does not see that and starts   
   to reason about a hypothetical non-input that does not halt.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)