XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/21/2025 11:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:   
   > On 22/11/2025 05:14, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical   
   >>>>>>>>> situtation   
   >>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH   
   >>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function   
   >>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in   
   >>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH   
   >>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several   
   >>>>>>> lines!)   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within   
   >>>>>> the context of this.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> int DD()   
   >>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>      return Halt_Status;   
   >>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 10/13/2022>   
   >>>>>>>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input   
   D   
   >>>>>>>>       until H correctly determines that its simulated D would   
   never   
   >>>>>>>>       stop running unless aborted then...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify   
   >>>>>> non-halting behavior.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;   
   >>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by   
   >>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a   
   >>>> self-evidently true basis.   
   >>>   
   >>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the   
   >>>> self-evidently true basis.   
   >>>   
   >>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of   
   >>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to   
   >>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The combination of the semantics of C   
   >> and the source of the function DD provide   
   >> all the information needed to specify all   
   >> of the details of the steps of DD simulated   
   >> by HHH.   
   >   
   > Not so.   
   >   
      
      
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D   
      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never   
      stop running unless aborted then   
      
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
      
      
   On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
    > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H   
    > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines   
    > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.   
      
   > HHH could, for example, contain its own exit() call, in which case DD   
   > halts, or its own for(;;); loop, in which case DD doesn't halt... or   
   > even both, in which case it all depends.   
   >   
   > Since DD calls HHH, DD's behaviour depends on HHH's behaviour, and any   
   > analysis of DD's behaviour must therefore include an analysis of HHH's   
   > behaviour.   
   >   
   > What you have to remember about olcott is that not only does he have no   
   > understanding of DD's specific dependency on HHH (ie whether DD halts   
   > depends first and foremost on HHH's coin-toss decision), but neither   
   > does he have any idea of any C function's generic dependency on the   
   > functions it calls.   
   >   
   > Not only is olcott a damned liar, but he's a damned idiot. He is, in   
   > fact, a fine exemplar of why killfiles were invented. Just plonk him and   
   > (barring the odd nymshyft) you can be done with him for good.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)