From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 7/21/2025 1:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2025 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jul.2025 om 23:18 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <[email protected]> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott doesn't show
respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands the concept >>>>> of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.

If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and learning, >>>>> and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays
contempt for
them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is
a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct >>>>> him, something that you've sensibly given up.

Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
clear.

Chat-boxes prove that reasoning with invalid presumptions lead to
invalid conclusions.

I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
pleasure of gaslighting:

<input to chat bots>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
</input to chat bots>

We see the invalid presumption in the input. There is no non-
termination behaviour in the input.

You can see that I did not even hint at non
termination of the input

??? We read that '... until it detects non-termination pattern' and
'When HHH detects such a pattern ...' before the '</input'
Since these presumptions are never happen, all conclusions based on it
are invalid as well.

I did not tell any bot that the input to HHH(DDD)
does not terminate and they all figured out on their
own that the input to HHH(DDD) does not terminate
because it specifies recursive emulation.
--
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 7/21/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/25 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 7:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/25 10:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2025 2:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 05:20 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/19/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't show
respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown >>>>>>>>>>>>> any respect
back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands >>>>>>>>>>>>> the concept
of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and learning,
and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays >>>>>>>>>>>>> contempt for
them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying >>>>>>>>>>>>> to correct
him, something that you've sensibly given up.

Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
clear.

They have done no such thing, because they can't

Since yoiu feed them lies, all you have done is shown that >>>>>>>>>>> you think lies are valid logic.

I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
pleasure of gaslighting:

Because you are just too stupid.

How is the "pattern" that HHH detects a non-halting pattern, >>>>>>>>>>> when non- halting is DEFINED by the behavior of the directly >>>>>>>>>>> executed machine, and the pattern you are thinking of exists >>>>>>>>>>> in the execution of the DDD that halts because it was built >>>>>>>>>>> on the same HHH you claim is correct to return 0,

Thus, your claim *IS* just a lie, and you shows your
ignorance by saying you can't undetstand how it is one.

<input to chat bots>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
</input to chat bots>

Every chatbot figures out on its own that HHH
correctly rejects DDD as non-terminating because
the input to HHH(DDD) specifies recursive simulation.

BECAUSE YOU LIE TO THEM, and a prime training parameter is to >>>>>>>>>>> give an answer the user is apt to like, and thus will tend to >>>>>>>>>>> just accept lies and errors provided.

I only defined the hypothetical possibility of a simulating >>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer. This cannot possibly be a lie. They
figured out all the rest on their own.

No you told it that a correct simulating termination analyser >>>>>>>>> could be presumed. Which is an invalid presumption, because it >>>>>>>>> has been proven that it cannot.

Unlike a halt decider that must be correct
on every input a simulating termination analyzer
only needs be correct on at least one input.

Nope, got a source for that definition.

Per you favorite sourse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis

The difference between a Halt Decider and a Terminatation
Analyzer is:


In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis
which attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given
program halts for each input.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}

Thus HHH(Infinite_Loop) is correct for every
input that Infinite_Loop has.

But the Termination Analyzer is HHH, not HHH(Infinite_Loop).

HHH correctly reports on the halt status
for every input that Infinite_Loop takes,

So?

all zero of them. This proves that HHH is
a termination analyzer for Infinite_Loop
even if HHH is wrong on everything else.

Nope, because a Termination Analyzer needs to answer about *ANY*
Program reperesented with an input.

*No that is merely your ADD*
determine whether the evaluation of a given program
halts for each input.

No, it is YOU who is altering it. I gave a reference, that points out
that it is the same as the halting problem, only about all possible
inputs, not just one given one.

*I quoted that from your above reference so it must be ADD*

On 7/20/2025 6:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

In computer science, termination analysis is program
analysis which attempts to
*determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts*
for each input. This means to determine whether the input program
computes a total function.

None of the people that are creating termination analyzers
have ever made one that works on all programs. They still
call their work termination analyzers.

WHere is the source of your fantasy?

It seems it is just your own ignorance, unless you can give a source for
it.

Note, the term "given" means it is supplied one input per invocation,
not just needs to solve that one possible input.

You are just showing how poorly you think, and that you don't care about being right, and that is how people will remember you, as you waste away into oblivion.

--
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

Op 21.jul.2025 om 15:03 schreef olcott:

On 7/21/2025 1:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2025 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jul.2025 om 23:18 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <[email protected]> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott doesn't show >>>>>> respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands the
concept
of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.

If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and
learning,
and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays
contempt for
them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is
a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct >>>>>> him, something that you've sensibly given up.

Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
clear.

Chat-boxes prove that reasoning with invalid presumptions lead to
invalid conclusions.

I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
pleasure of gaslighting:

<input to chat bots>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
</input to chat bots>

We see the invalid presumption in the input. There is no non-
termination behaviour in the input.

You can see that I did not even hint at non
termination of the input

??? We read that '... until it detects non-termination pattern' and
'When HHH detects such a pattern ...' before the '</input'
Since these presumptions are never happen, all conclusions based on it
are invalid as well.

I did not tell any bot that the input to HHH(DDD)
does not terminate and they all figured out on their
own that the input to HHH(DDD) does not terminate
because it specifies recursive emulation.

You gave it contradictory information. You told it that it simulates
until it detects non-halting behaviour. You also told it that it aborts
and returns 0. HHH cannot at the same time return 0 and show
non-termination behaviour when simulated.

With invalid and contradictory starting points, any conclusion becomes useless.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 7/21/25 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/21/2025 1:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2025 om 17:07 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2025 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 19.jul.2025 om 23:18 schreef olcott:

On 7/19/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mike Terry <[email protected]> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.  Peter Olcott doesn't show >>>>>> respect here for anybody.  Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.  I don't think he understands the
concept
of respect any more than he understands the concept of truth.

If he were to show repect, he'd repect knowledge, truth, and
learning,
and strive to acquire these qualities.  Instead he displays
contempt for
them.  This is a large part of what makes him a crank.  It is
a large part of what makes it such a waste of time trying to correct >>>>>> him, something that you've sensibly given up.

Now that chat bots have proven that they understand
what I am saying I can rephrase my words to be more
clear.

Chat-boxes prove that reasoning with invalid presumptions lead to
invalid conclusions.

I have been rude because I cannot interpret the
rebuttal to this statement as anything besides
a despicable lie for the sole purpose of sadistic
pleasure of gaslighting:

<input to chat bots>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.
</input to chat bots>

We see the invalid presumption in the input. There is no non-
termination behaviour in the input.

You can see that I did not even hint at non
termination of the input

??? We read that '... until it detects non-termination pattern' and
'When HHH detects such a pattern ...' before the '</input'
Since these presumptions are never happen, all conclusions based on it
are invalid as well.

I did not tell any bot that the input to HHH(DDD)
does not terminate and they all figured out on their
own that the input to HHH(DDD) does not terminate
because it specifies recursive emulation.

You told it that HHH detected a non-halting pattern in the input, by
using the word "when" which implies existance.

Sorry, you are just lying.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2