From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2