• Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated finalhalt state

    From Bonita Montero@Bonita.Montero@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 16:20:32 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    Am 06.11.2025 um 21:48 schrieb olcott:
    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    simulated final halt state.

    I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of
    resuming a simulation after we already have this
    final answer.

    We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies
    non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a
    dead horse.


    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com

    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.


    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.

    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 09:47:35 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/25/2025 9:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    Am 06.11.2025 um 21:48 schrieb olcott:
    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    simulated final halt state.

    I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of
    resuming a simulation after we already have this
    final answer.

    We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies
    non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a
    dead horse.


    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com

    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.


    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.


    I now have four different LLM AI models that prove
    that I am correct on the basis that they derive the
    proof steps that prove that I am correct.

    Even Kimi that was dead set against me now fully
    understands my new formal foundation for correct
    reasoning.
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Bonita Montero@Bonita.Montero@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 16:50:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    Am 25.11.2025 um 16:47 schrieb olcott:
    On 11/25/2025 9:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.


    I now have four different LLM AI models that prove
    that I am correct on the basis that they derive the
    proof steps that prove that I am correct.
    It don't matters if you're correct. There's no benefit in discussing
    such a theoretical topic for years. You won't even stop if everyone
    tells you're right.

    Even Kimi that was dead set against me now fully
    understands my new formal foundation for correct
    reasoning.


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 10:09:50 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/25/2025 9:50 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    Am 25.11.2025 um 16:47 schrieb olcott:
    On 11/25/2025 9:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.


    I now have four different LLM AI models that prove
    that I am correct on the basis that they derive the
    proof steps that prove that I am correct.

    It don't matters if you're correct. There's no benefit in discussing
    such a theoretical topic for years. You won't even stop if everyone
    tells you're right.

    My whole purpose of this has been to establish a
    new foundation for correct reasoning that gets rid
    of Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability
    such that Boolean True(Language L Expression E) is
    consistent and correct for the whole body of
    knowledge that can be expressed in language.

    The timing for such a system is perfect because it
    could solve the LLM AI reliability issues. Once
    it does that I will no longer need to talk about
    it on conventional forums. At that point all of
    my talks will be formal presentations at symposiums.


    Even Kimi that was dead set against me now fully
    understands my new formal foundation for correct
    reasoning.


    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 11:37:27 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/25/25 10:47 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 11/25/2025 9:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    Am 06.11.2025 um 21:48 schrieb olcott:
    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    simulated final halt state.

    I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of
    resuming a simulation after we already have this
    final answer.

    We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies
    non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a
    dead horse.


    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com

    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.


    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.


    I now have four different LLM AI models that prove
    that I am correct on the basis that they derive the
    proof steps that prove that I am correct.

    Even Kimi that was dead set against me now fully
    understands my new formal foundation for correct
    reasoning.


    But they only "agree" with your arguement, because you LIE in that
    arguement that H CAN correctly determine the answer.

    Sorry, arguements based on LIES are just unsound, as you are proving
    that you are so fundamentally.

    All you are doing is proving that you are just an incredably stupid pathological liar that has no concept of what truth or logic actually is.

    That is why you believe your own lies, and reject the fact that people
    point out to you, as they don't match the lie of your definition of "truth".


    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaz Kylheku@643-408-1753@kylheku.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.ai.philosophy on Tue Nov 25 17:33:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 11/25/2025 9:50 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    Am 25.11.2025 um 16:47 schrieb olcott:
    On 11/25/2025 9:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
    What you do is like thinking in circles before falling asleep.
    It never ends. You're gonna die with that for sure sooner or later.


    I now have four different LLM AI models that prove
    that I am correct on the basis that they derive the
    proof steps that prove that I am correct.

    It don't matters if you're correct. There's no benefit in discussing
    such a theoretical topic for years. You won't even stop if everyone
    tells you're right.

    My whole purpose of this has been to establish a
    new foundation for correct reasoning that gets rid

    Unfortunately, your reasoning was proven wrong before
    you were born, and your computer program does
    not show what you say it does.

    The timing for such a system is perfect because it
    could solve the LLM AI reliability issues.

    You have no idea how LLMs work and what is at the root of the LLM
    reliability issues, and how to even take the first step in fixing it.

    You have zero qualifications for doing anything like that, and no chance
    of developing the qualifications; that window is long gone.
    --
    TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
    Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
    Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c on Tue Nov 25 11:39:45 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/25/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    simulated final halt state.

    It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return, possible even in your horribly incorrect program that fails to conform
    to the requirements for exploring the halting problem.


    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.


    Until five people from comp.lang.c call you out
    on this they will remain in the loop
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From olcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c on Tue Nov 25 13:18:14 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/25/2025 12:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-25, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 11/25/2025 11:42 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
    D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
    simulated final halt state.

    It has been shown /wth code/ that D simulated by H reaches its return,

    Liar, Liar Pants on Fire !!!

    I made the code public; another person was able to build and get the
    same results.


    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.



    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.



    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.



    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.



    news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com
    On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
    On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

    The whole point is that D simulated by H
    cannot possbly reach its own simulated
    "return" statement no matter what H does.

    Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.

    So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
    that D simulation won't reach the return statement.

    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

    My 28 year goal has been to make
    "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Richard Damon@Richard@Damon-Family.org to comp.theory,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c on Sun Dec 14 20:59:29 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 11/12/25 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 11/12/2025 8:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

    If those two are in any way whatsoever different, the entire
    castle you built in the sand is washed away.


    *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
    *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*
    *This is a FOREVER thing until someone admits the truth*

    We are waiting for you to see the actual truth through your lies.


    int D()
    {
      int Halt_Status = H(D);
      if (Halt_Status)
        HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
    }

    Everyone here rejects that the execution trace
    of 5 statements of D simulated by H according to
    the semantics of C is this:

    (1)    H simulates D that calls H(D)
    (2) that simulates D that calls H(D)
    (3) that simulates D that calls H(D)
    (4) that simulates D that calls H(D)
    (5) that simulates D that calls H(D)



    Because that isn't what C says.

    If you define that H is a simulator, maybe (but then you just specified
    that it doesn't abort its simulation).

    If you define that H is a decider that simulates, and might abort, then
    that is NOT the behavior specified.

    Without a strict specification of what H does, the code is just
    underfined, and you claims just stupid lies.
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2