XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/3/2025 12:13 PM, wij wrote:   
   > On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 12:00 -0600, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/3/2025 11:33 AM, wij wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 11:18 -0600, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/3/2025 8:19 AM, wij wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 2025-11-03 at 07:47 -0600, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/1/2025 9:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 02/11/2025 01:46, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Once Olcott has plonked everyone I guess the shitshow here will   
   finally   
   >>>>>>>> stop?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> /Flibble   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> PO will still post new threads, but the average thread size will shrink   
   >>>>>>> to about 6 posts.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> PO will only see his own posts, so there will be no incentive for him   
   to   
   >>>>>>> "evolve" his duffer-speak in response to objections.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> int D()   
   >>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>       int Halt_Status = H(D);   
   >>>>>>       if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>         HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>       return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The function H is a simulating termination analyzer:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:   
   >>>>>>         abort simulation and return 0.   
   >>>>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated   
   >>>>>>         "return" statement: return 1.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> when given a function P, it literally simulates   
   >>>>>> each step of executing P() to see whether that   
   >>>>>> simulated execution ever reaches a return statement.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Now let H simulate D. Based only on the outcome of   
   >>>>>> that literal simulation (not on reasoning about what   
   >>>>>> should happen), what result should H(D) produce?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> H(D) can never return.   
   >>>>> This condition is described as 'undecidable' as HP proof has shown.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You simply ignored (a).   
   >>>   
   >>> You ignored the fact that HP asks for a real halt decider, not 'words'.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You ignored the fact that I am only talking about   
   >> the actual steps of D actually simulated by H and   
   >> not one damn thing else in the universe.   
   >   
   > Your D says:   
      
   Nothing matters besides the actual execution trace   
   of D simulated by H. LLM systems were also very   
   stupid about this until I added these two paragraphs.   
      
   Maybe paying 100% complete attention to every detail of   
   these two paragraph is beyond your attention span:   
      
   The function H is a simulating termination analyzer:   
   (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern:   
        abort simulation and return 0.   
   (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated   
        "return" statement: return 1.   
      
   When given a function P, it literally simulates each step of executing   
   P() to see whether that simulated execution ever reaches a return   
   statement. Now let H simulate D. Based only on the outcome of that   
   literal simulation (not on reasoning about what should happen), what   
   result should H(D) produce?   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   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)