Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.software-eng > #3919

Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input

Subject Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog, sci.lang, comp.software-eng
References <10llfbr$33j0o$1@dont-email.me> <10lnfta$35ge4$1@dont-email.me> <10lo2ti$3v8v0$1@dont-email.me> <j_MfR.514813$68Za.166161@fx09.iad> <10lo6ev$kt0$1@dont-email.me>
From Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID <feNfR.514814$68Za.359396@fx09.iad> (permalink)
Organization Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date 2026-02-01 13:48 -0500

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 2/1/26 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/1/2026 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/1/26 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2026 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/31/26 12:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Source code of fully operational system
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD step-by-step according to
>>>>> the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>
>>>> IT CAN'T, as you have been told, as your above program, without the 
>>>> C CODE for HHH, has undefined behavior by the semantics of the C 
>>>> programming language.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH correctly determines that DD does not have a well-founded
>>>>> justification tree within Proof theoretic semantics.
>>>>
>>>> But only because your DD is not a well-formed program because you 
>>>> fail to include the code for all the program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the f-ck do you think this is? Sheep Dip ?
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>> Which wasn't in the input you talked about.
> 
> Has the source of HHH that you incorrectly
> said was missing.

Which wasn't in the problem you qouted initiall]y.

Which was EXACTLY:
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}

Where is the mention of halt7.c?

I guesss you just naturally lie so much it doesn't bother you any more.

IF you think stuff not mentioned can be considered there, then you are 
just a liar.

And, since your HHH doesn't do what you claim, even WITH that code, you 
are just a liar that doesn't understand what his own program does, and 
think he can imagine the code fairy just fixing it and making the one 
program be two different programs.

Again, proof that you are juat a stupid pathological liar that doesn't 
know what the truth is.

Your problem is you just refuse to accept the truth, because it 
disagrees with your ideas.

That makes YOU wrong, not the truth, and shows that you just seem to be 
mentally incapable of handling actual truth, so you live in your world 
of lies that you have told yourself.

> 
>>
>> If you include Halt7.c as your input, then your HHH is now also 
>> defined, and since it doesn't do what you said it does, your analysis 
>> is based on lying.
>>
>> Note, this input CAN'T be the version you are talking about, as your 
>> HHH doesn't see "C" code, so can't interprete its input per the C 
>> language.
>>
>> All you are doing is PROVING that you have forgotten what Truth means, 
>> and are just as stupid and ignorant pathological liar.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And the reason its behavior isn't "well-founded" is because you 
>>>> failed to include the actual code for HHH. If you do, and that code 
>>>> happens to abort its simulation and returns non-halting, then it is 
>>>> well founded that DD will halt.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When HHH is construed as a proof theoretic halting prover
>>>>> HHH detects the pathological-self-reference of its input and
>>>>> rejects DD as non-well-founded on this basis.
>>>>
>>>> Because your input is just garbage, because you never understood 
>>>> what you were talking abouyt,
>>>>
>>>> The problem is you think lying is valid logic.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> % This sentence is not true.
>>>>> ?- LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> LP = not(true(LP)).
>>>>> ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
>>>>> false.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Liar Paradox is formally rejected by Prolog
>>>>> occurs_check for this same reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> occurs_check correctly determines that LP does not
>>>>> have a well-founded justification tree within Proof
>>>>> theoretic semantics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is just irrelevent here, as DD doesn't "call" itself.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just proving you are just a pathological liar.
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>

Back to comp.software-eng | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-31 11:49 -0600
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:11 -0500
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 11:35 -0600
      Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 13:31 -0500
        Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 12:36 -0600
          Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 13:48 -0500
      Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 12:41 -0800
        Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:15 -0600
          Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 14:19 -0800
            Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 16:27 -0600
              Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 15:43 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 18:00 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 18:42 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 20:50 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 18:52 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 21:04 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 10:06 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 14:20 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 18:49 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 21:11 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 19:23 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 22:08 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 20:15 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 22:31 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 20:36 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 23:01 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 21:22 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 23:26 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 23:42 -0800
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 08:58 -0600
                Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-06 10:21 -0500
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 13:35 -0600
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 15:03 -0500
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 14:12 -0600
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 18:39 -0500
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 17:45 -0600
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 18:55 -0500
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 18:00 -0600
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 19:15 -0500
  Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-02-01 18:28 -0600
    Re: Proof theoretic semantics based halt prover correctly rejects its input Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-01 20:33 -0500

csiph-web