XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/30/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-30, olcott wrote:
>> HHH does correctly report that DD simulated
>> by HHH (according to the semantics of the C
>> programming language) does not halt.
>
(1) It is a fact that this input to HHH(DD) does specify
non-halting behavior according to this definition
that you erased:
An input DD that halts for a simulating termination
analyzer HHH is defined as DD reaching its own simulated
"return" statement while DD is being simulated by HHH.
(2) It is a fact that HHH reports this.
The key most important fact is that the halting
problem *is* a category error because it requires
a halt decider to report on different behavior
than the actual behavior that its actual input
actually specifies.
This makes everything else that you say below moot
AKA totally beside the point and irrelevant.
> You have rigged this with a "Root" flag whch dynamically changes the
> behavior of the second and subsequent calls to HHH, turning it into a
> different procedure. That action also dynamically reconfgures DD into a
> different function, which doesn't terminate, while the original DD does.
>
> If what you were saying were true, you would not need to employ invalid
> tricks; you could properly demonstrate it with pure functions.
>
> You don't understand that dynamically changing HHH is invalid, because
> you don't understand that DD is built out of HHH. You incorrectly
> believe there is always a single DD, no matter how HHH is redefined.
>
> This is all because you have a grotesquely crude, ape-like intellect,
> in addition to being a consummate crank.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
