From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show
respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect
back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays contempt for >>> them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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. Four different Chatbots
all figured out on their own that the input to
HHH(DDD) is non terminating because this input
specifies recursive simulation.
--
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 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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show
respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>> back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays contempt >>>> for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

Op 20.jul.2025 om 16:08 schreef olcott:

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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show >>>>>> respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays
contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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.

As usual only an invalid claim without evidence.

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
-a Infinite_Recursion();
}

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

void Infinite_Loop2()
{
L1: goto L3;
L2: goto L1;
L3: goto L2;
}

HHH correctly determines the halt status of
the above three functions.

Irrelevant, because the case we are talking about has neither an
infinite loop, nor an infinite recursion.
HHH must simulate DDD that calls HHH. If HHH halts, then there is only a finite recursion:

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");
}

HHH decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion,
which is incorrect.

All you are doing is showing you don't understand how Artificiial
Intelegence actualy works, showing your Natural Stupidity.

That they provided all of the reasoning why DDD correctly
simulated by HHH does not halt proves that they do have
the functional equivalent of human understanding.

The other error is the presumption that a simulation that does not
reach the end of the simulation is evidence for non-termination.

*Incorrect paraphrase*
Halting is defined as reaching a final halt state.

Yes and non-haltig is defined as never reaching the haltstate when
running undisturbed. When a computer is switched off, or a simulation
aborted, before a final halt state is reached, there is no evidence for non-halting behaviour of the program.

if the state is final, the machine just stops and continues no more. https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/38228/what-is-halting

When it is correctly predicted that
an infinite simulation of the input
cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state then the
input is non-halting.

But when it is incorrectly predicted, the program fails. This is the
case when HHH aborts the program that is specified in the input, which
has the same abort code as HHH itself. The input specifies a halting
program, as proven by other simulations, but HHH fails to reach this
final halt state. This is evidence that HHH is not the right tool for
this input.

It is not. An incomplete simulation is at best an indication that
other tools are needed to determine non-halting behaviour.

You cannot possibly coherently explain the details of this
because what you just said in incorrect. Exactly what are
the "other tools" that you are referring to a magic wand?

In this case it is the reasoning that the input specifies a final halt
state, proven by other tools, like world-class simulators and direct execution. For other inputs we may need to use other tools, but it is
very well possible that for some inputs no such tool exists.
It is a sign of bad reading capability that I have to repeat that so
many times and you still do not understand it.

That everyone here denies what every first year CS student
would understand seems to prove that they know that they
are liars.

Even first year CS students understand that false presumptions lead to
false conclusions. That is the only thing the chat box shows.Yet they
recognize that recursive simulation is a

non-halting behavior pattern similar to infinite
recursion. Termination analyzers correctly predict
what the behavior of infinite simulation would be.

Sorry, the non-halting behaviour and the infinite recursion exists only
in your dream. The HHH that aborts only sees a finite recursion, because
the simulated HHH has the same code to (incorrectly) abort and halt.
Dreams are no substitute for facts, nor a mathematical proof.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't show
respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown >>>>>>>>>>>> any respect
back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays >>>>>>>>>>>> contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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()
{
-a-a HERE: goto HERE;
-a-a 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.

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.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show
respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays
contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't show
respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown >>>>>>>>>>>>> any respect
back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays >>>>>>>>>>>>> contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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()
{
-a-a HERE: goto HERE;
-a-a 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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show >>>>>> respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays
contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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 <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

ps. learn to post more respectfully.

You've hit the nail on the head, there.-a Peter Olcott doesn't show >>>>>> respect here for anybody.-a Because of this he isn't shown any respect >>>>>> back - he hasn't earned any.-a 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.-a Instead he displays
contempt for
them.-a This is a large part of what makes him a crank.-a 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()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a return;
}

int main()
{
-a-a HHH(DDD);
-a-a 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