Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can be
both finite and infinite?

On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
> be
> both finite and infinite?

He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth

For him, truth::= a lie telling one thousand times.
(Richard should know the details)

But, on the other hand, lots had been tried, something is true there.

On 2024-01-30 23:16:48 +0000, wij said:

> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>> be> both finite and infinite?
>
> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
> How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’
> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
>
>
> For him, truth::= a lie telling one thousand times.
> (Richard should know the details)
>
> But, on the other hand, lots had been tried, something is true there.

According to that article, people tend to believe what they hear often.
But not what contradicts what they have heard even more often.
Olcott fails because he cannot avoid contradicting what is heard
more often, apparently because he doesn't know enough about what is
often heard.

--
Mikko

On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>> be
>> both finite and infinite?
>
> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.

Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
against me. Much of what a say is self-evident truth thus impossibly
false.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
> > > Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence
> > > can
> > > be
> > > both finite and infinite?
> >
> > He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
> > a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
> against me.

I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
are intentionally false, you know POOH has many flaws that do not fit
the reality.

> Much of what a say is self-evident truth thus impossibly
> false.
>

Just on the contrary, much of what you said (about POOH) are false.

On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence
>>>> can
>>>> be
>>>> both finite and infinite?
>>>
>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>>
>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>> against me.
>
> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
> are intentionally false,

*You can't provide any examples of such*
All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

*PREMISE*
*When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
*is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted*

01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }

*IS LOGICALLY ENTAILED FROM PREMISE*
Then every simulating termination analyzer H specified by
the above template correctly aborts its simulation of D
and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/24 16:34, olcott wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>> be
>>> both finite and infinite?
>>
>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
> against me. Much of what a say is self-evident truth thus impossibly
> false.
>
You intentionally ignore the infinite sequence formulation of the
halting problem.

In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>> be both finite and infinite?

>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.

>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>> against me.

>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>> are intentionally false,

> *You can't provide any examples of such*

How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.

> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.

> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.

> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
otherwise.

You know full well that it's not truthful.

[ .... ]

> --
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>> against me.
>
>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>> are intentionally false,
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
> set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

I don't ACM much and definitely not in de.
I do ACM a little.

*Three PhD computer science professors agree*
Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

*Maybe you can try your libel on them*

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>> against me.
>
>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>> are intentionally false,
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
> set.

> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.

It is an objective fact that is a ridiculously stupid thing to say
There are many to be found on Google Scholar [termination analyzer]

*Here is the best one that I found*
https://aprove.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/interface/v-AProVE2023/c

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/24 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>> be
>>> both finite and infinite?
>>
>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
> against me. Much of what a say is self-evident truth thus impossibly
> false.
>

It is not label to state a truth.

The fact that you claim false statements to be self-evident truths shows
that you are a pathological liar, whihc is a form of liar, even if you
don't think you are.

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> >

> *You can't provide any examples of such*
> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> *PREMISE*
> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted*
>
> 01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }

Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?

This basic question has been asked many times before.
Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
what the program actually does.

Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
repeatly).

On 1/31/24 9:16 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>
>> *PREMISE*
>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted*
>>
>> 01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>
> Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
> Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
>
> This basic question has been asked many times before.
> Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
> will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
> what the program actually does.
>
> Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
> deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
> repeatly).
>
>

Bigger quesition, why don't you make main be:

int main()
{ H(D,D);
D(D);
return 0;
}

So we can see the actual behavior of D(D) like Halting is asking about.
If a D(D) doesn't actually "halt" if a simulation of it is aborted, that
will show up in the trace generated by x86UTM of this input.

You also need int main(), as void main() is undefined behavior unless
the implementation is SPECIFICALLY "Free Standing" and defines that void
main is ok.

On 1/31/2024 8:16 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>
>> *PREMISE*
>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted*
>>
>> 01 int D(ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 void main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>
> Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
> Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
>
> This basic question has been asked many times before.
> Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
> will behave.

Q2 proves otherwise.
It is like asking: Does this code print "Equals":
if (3 == 5)
printf("Equals\n");

> But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
> what the program actually does.
>

*H examines the execution trace of the x86 code of D*
H simulates D in debug-step mode and as soon as H sees D call H with
its same parameters and there are no conditional branch instructions
between the beginning of D and its call to H(D,D) then H has its proof
that D never halts.

Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

If you can't infer the value that H returns on the basis of the
above explanation (and code) then you lack sufficient technical
skill to correctly review my work.

> Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
> deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
> repeatly).
>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 21:27 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 1/31/24 9:16 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > *You can't provide any examples of such*
> > > All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
> > > the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident
> > > truth.
> > >
> > > Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
> > > statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
> > > of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
> > >
> > > Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
> > > analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
> > > and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
> > >
> > > *PREMISE*
> > > *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
> > > *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
> > > *stop running unless aborted*
> > >
> > > 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> > > 02 {
> > > 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> > > 04   if (Halt_Status)
> > > 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> > > 06   return Halt_Status;
> > > 07 }
> > > 08
> > > 09 void main()
> > > 10 {
> > > 11   H(D,D);
> > > 12 }
> >
> > Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
> > Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
> >
> > This basic question has been asked many times before.
> > Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of
> > codes
> > will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things
> > not
> > what the program actually does.
> >
> > Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because
> > you
> > deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
> > repeatly).
> >
> >
>
> Bigger quesition, why don't you make main be:
>
> int main()
> {
>    H(D,D);
>    D(D);
>    return 0;
> }
>
>
> So we can see the actual behavior of D(D) like Halting is asking
> about.
> If a D(D) doesn't actually "halt" if a simulation of it is aborted,
> that
> will show up in the trace generated by  x86UTM of this input.
>

I tried this before, and IIRC you responded approximately the same as
you say now.

>
> You also need int main(), as void main() is undefined behavior unless
> the implementation is SPECIFICALLY "Free Standing" and defines that
> void
> main is ok.

Technically, the HP has been silently modified to addressing
'function'.

If you are talking about "C". I think "void main()" is valid,
but not sure.

On 1/31/2024 8:53 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 20:44 -0600, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 8:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident
>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>>>
>>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> *PREMISE*
>>>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>>>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
>>> Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
>>>
>>> This basic question has been asked many times before.
>>> Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of
>>> codes
>>> will behave.
>>
>> Q2 proves otherwise.
>> It is like asking: Does this code print "Equals":
>>    if (3 == 5)
>>      printf("Equals\n");
>>
>>> But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
>>> what the program actually does.
>>>
>>
>> *H examines the execution trace of the x86 code of D*
>> H simulates D in debug-step mode and as soon as H sees D call H with
>> its same parameters and there are no conditional branch instructions
>> between the beginning of D and its call to H(D,D) then H has its
>> proof
>> that D never halts.
>>
>> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>> If you can't infer the value that H returns on the basis of the
>> above explanation (and code) then you lack sufficient technical
>> skill to correctly review my work.
>>
>
> Your strategy won't work for me. Good luck, liar.
>

In other words you admit that you don't know these things well enough.

>>> Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because
>>> you
>>> deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
>>> repeatly).
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/24 9:47 PM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 21:27 -0500, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/31/24 9:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident
>>>> truth.
>>>>
>>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>>>
>>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> *PREMISE*
>>>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>>>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 void main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
>>> Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
>>>
>>> This basic question has been asked many times before.
>>> Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of
>>> codes
>>> will behave. But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things
>>> not
>>> what the program actually does.
>>>
>>> Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because
>>> you
>>> deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
>>> repeatly).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Bigger quesition, why don't you make main be:
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    H(D,D);
>>    D(D);
>>    return 0;
>> }
>>
>>
>> So we can see the actual behavior of D(D) like Halting is asking
>> about.
>> If a D(D) doesn't actually "halt" if a simulation of it is aborted,
>> that
>> will show up in the trace generated by  x86UTM of this input.
>>
>
> I tried this before, and IIRC you responded approximately the same as
> you say now.
>

He did it once, and when pointed out that HE had shown that the correct
simulation of D (by x86UTM) came to and end, he seems to have realized
he can't let himself do this.

>>
>> You also need int main(), as void main() is undefined behavior unless
>> the implementation is SPECIFICALLY "Free Standing" and defines that
>> void
>> main is ok.
>
> Technically, the HP has been silently modified to addressing
> 'function'.
>
> If you are talking about "C". I think "void main()" is valid,
> but not sure.
>

5.1.2.2.1p1

The function called at program startup is named main. The implementation
declares no prototype for this function. It shall be defined with a
return type of int and with no parameters:

int main(void) { /* ... */ }

or with two parameters (referred to here as argc and argv, though any
names may be used, as they
are local to the function in which they are declared):

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { /* ... */ }

or equivalent;10)

On 1/31/24 9:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 8:16 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>>>
>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>>>
>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>>>
>>> *PREMISE*
>>> *When one understands that simulating termination analyzer H*
>>> *is always correct to abort any simulation that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted*
>>>
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>
>> Q1. Does the H at line 11 return? What value?
>> Q2. Does the H at line 03 return? What value?
>>
>> This basic question has been asked many times before.
>> Everybody understands C knows exactly what such short piece of codes
>> will behave.
>
> Q2 proves otherwise.
> It is like asking: Does this code print "Equals":
>   if (3 == 5)
>     printf("Equals\n");

WHy do you say that?

Are you LYIONG again that H(D,D) can do two different things?

YOu have admitted otherwise by refusing to show the trace that proves it
can.

>
>> But you always present MADE-UP report, saying things not
>> what the program actually does.
>>
>
> *H examines the execution trace of the x86 code of D*
> H simulates D in debug-step mode and as soon as H sees D call H with
> its same parameters and there are no conditional branch instructions
> between the beginning of D and its call to H(D,D) then H has its proof
> that D never halts.

Nope. UNSOUND LOGIC.

Proven so, and thus you show yourself AGAIN to just be a pathological liar.

>
> Pages 661 to 696 of Halt7.c specify the H that does this
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

It can do the actions, doesn't make the logic correct.

Since the logic is PROVEN incorrect, it just shows that you believe in
unsound logic, just as your seem to be unsound in mind.

>
> If you can't infer the value that H returns on the basis of the
> above explanation (and code) then you lack sufficient technical
> skill to correctly review my work.

Oh, we can infer that H uses that "logic", and tha tis why it gets the
wrong answer, as you have admitted.

You are just proving that you are just an ignorant hypocritical
pathological lying idiot.

>
>> Most importantly, you know you are not telling the truth because you
>> deliberately+very carefully EDIT the false reports (many, and
>> repeatly).
>>
>>
>

On 1/31/2024 10:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>> against me.
>
>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>> are intentionally false,
>
>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
You might have a degree in Mathematics but it's clear that you (and most
of the people contributing to these inane threads) have never read
"Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. The book is immensely
enjoyable and is highly recommended.
>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
> set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.--
Jeff Barnett

Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 10:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:

[ .... ]

>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>> are intentionally false,

>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*

>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
>> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.

>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.

>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

>> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.

> You might have a degree in Mathematics but it's clear that you (and most
> of the people contributing to these inane threads) have never read
> "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. The book is immensely
> enjoyable and is highly recommended.

Maybe. Supposing I were to study this book earnestly, what would I learn
that is relevant to the current inane thread?

[ .... ]

> Jeff Barnett

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?

>>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it..

>>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>>> against me.

>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>> are intentionally false,

>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*

>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
>> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.

>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.

>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.

>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.

>> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.

>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.

>> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
>> set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>> otherwise.

>> You know full well that it's not truthful.

>> [ .... ]

> I don't ACM much and definitely not in de.
> I do ACM a little.

That's incoherent and meaningless.

> *Three PhD computer science professors agree*
> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation

The plain straight answer is yes it does. More nuanced answers would say
that practical computation is far more limited by other things.

On what do these anonymous alleged computer science professors agree?
That the question exists?

> *Maybe you can try your libel on them*

Get this straight: I don't libel and I don't tell lies on Usenet.

Yesterday evening, I challenged you to deny having lied, and you failed
to address the point. You write falsehoods on Usenet, and do so
knowingly. There's a word for that.

> --
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

On 2/1/2024 1:08 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/2024 10:09 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 09:34 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/30/2024 5:16 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 21:55 +0100, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is it because he cannot find an excuse to argue that a sequence can
>>>>>>>> be both finite and infinite?
>
>>>>>>> He ignores a lots, not just now. You are arguing with a liar. To be
>>>>>>> a true liar, you have to lie to yourself first. olcott did it.
>
>>>>>> Nothing that I said is an intentional falsehood thus you commit libel
>>>>>> against me.
>
>>>>> I know what kind of risk I am involved. But yes, many things you said
>>>>> are intentionally false,
>
>>>> *You can't provide any examples of such*
>
>>> How about you posting on this group that you had coded up turing machines
>>> which demonstrated the falsity of the halting theorem? Did you make such
>>> a post or didn't you? If you did, it was a lie.
>
>>>> All of the examples that were claimed were simply anchored in
>>>> the insufficient understanding of the notion of self-evident truth.
>
>>> I know about self evident truth, having a degree in mathematics. In your
>>> posts over the years, you have ignored self evident truths (i.e.
>>> mathematically proven results) and lied about them being falsehoods.
>
>>>> Also Richard has the dippy idea that unintentionally false
>>>> statements count as lying. He seems to think that a difference
>>>> of opinion with his own misconceptions counts as me lying.
>
>>> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
>>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
>>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>>> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>>>> Below I reference an infinite set of simulating termination
>>>> analyzers that each correctly aborts its simulation of D
>>>> and correctly rejects D as non-halting.
>
>>> I suspect very much this is a lie, too. There's no sign of an infinite
>>> set. There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>>> otherwise.

*Such a stupid things to say*
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

>
>>> You know full well that it's not truthful.
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>> I don't ACM much and definitely not in de.
>> I do ACM a little.
>
> That's incoherent and meaningless.
It a a joke based on your email address.

>
>> *Three PhD computer science professors agree*
>> Does the halting problem place an actual limit on computation?
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
>
> The plain straight answer is yes it does. More nuanced answers would say
> that practical computation is far more limited by other things.
>
> On what do these anonymous alleged computer science professors agree?
> That the question exists?
>

*They are not anonymous Dumbo. Read before you critique nitwit*
They are listed in the paper's references.

>> *Maybe you can try your libel on them*
>
> Get this straight: I don't libel and I don't tell lies on Usenet.
>
> Yesterday evening, I challenged you to deny having lied, and you failed
> to address the point. You write falsehoods on Usenet, and do so
> knowingly. There's a word for that.
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 2/1/2024 11:57 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> wrote:
>> On 1/31/2024 10:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
SNIP
>>> No. Unintentionally false statements are not lying. But deliberately
>>> remaining ignorant of the truth does indeed point to lying. With
>>> mathematically proven results, there's no such thing as "a difference of
>>> opinion". Proven is proven and wrong is wrong.
>
>> You might have a degree in Mathematics but it's clear that you (and most
>> of the people contributing to these inane threads) have never read
>> "Proofs and Refutations" by Imre Lakatos. The book is immensely
>> enjoyable and is highly recommended.
>
> Maybe. Supposing I were to study this book earnestly, what would I learn
> that is relevant to the current inane thread?
The book is considered by many as a classic. It is a pretend
conversation between a teacher and a rather bright class of budding
mathematicians. Several classic theorems are covered that were believed
proved and used to do mathematical work proving other theorems in text
books, lectures and journals. The fly in the ointment is that none of
these theorems were true! Yet the whole math community went on with
business as usual. Two examples of such theorems: Euler's theorem
relating the number of faces, edges, and corners of a polygon depends on
how one defines polygon - it can get quite complicated with the whole
class of non-convex examples, e.g., those with tunnels. Another example
is from elementary high school calculus were we learn about series of
continuous functions that converge to a continuous function under some
simple epsilon/ delta conditions. That theorem was not only false but
was used by world class mathematicians when Fourier series were "fresh"
and all the rage! One could converge to discontinuous functions such as
step functions with standard sin/cos examples. Everyone ignored these
anomalies and went on with business as usual. One day the difference
between convergence and uniform convergence was discovered and the world
was right again. But a lot of text books needed to be rewritten.

Like I said: this book is a fun read and tries (successfully) to be
humorous. As for category. place it in philosophy of mathematics.

Enjoy.

PS What you would learn is that proof of real theorems is really really
difficult and knowing when something is really really proved is also
really really difficult.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:

> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
> otherwise.
>
> You know full well that it's not truthful.

*Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

In comp.theory olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/31/2024 11:56 AM, acm@muc.de wrote:

>> There's no such thing as a "termination analyser", simulating or
>> otherwise.

>> You know full well that it's not truthful.

> *Alan Mackenzie proves a callous disregard for the truth*
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,28&q=termination+analyzer

I've asked you before not to abuse my name in post Subjects. It doesn't
belong there.

And no, I'm not going to look up vague references, particularly on
google.com, to which I've got no access anyway.

I think I have indeed proved a "callous disregard for the truth", namely
yours. In the last few posts, you have declined to deny an earlier
posting asserting you had coded turing machines which refute the halting
theorem. That was a lie when you posted it, and you are not going to
repeat the lie by denying it now.

You have a dishonest disregard for proven truth, such as the halting
theorem, or Gödel's incompleteness theorems. The lack of understanding
you show for them doesn't excuse you, given the number of times people
have attempted to put you right.

> --
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).