Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #122522 > unrolled thread

How is this answer not self-evident ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 00:30 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:55 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:30 -0500
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 06:40 +0000
      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 10:18 +0200
      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-14 09:06 -0400
        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 09:17 -0500
          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation minforth <minforth@gmx.net> - 2025-08-14 18:54 +0200
            Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:35 +0200
              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:16 -0500
                Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 16:26 +0200
                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-23 15:41 +0100
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 17:10 +0200
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 23:30 +0800
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 18:46 +0200
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 09:52 +0800
                            Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 04:29 +0200
                              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 10:41 +0800
                                Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 12:09 +0200
                                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 22:29 +0800
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 23:30 +0800
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:32 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-23 17:46 +0000
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:52 -0500
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:21 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-24 09:35 +0200
                  Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:25 -0500
                    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 15:33 +0000
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:23 -0500
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:41 +0000
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:56 -0500
                            Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 10:08 -0500
                      Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 18:46 +0200
                        Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:48 +0000
                          Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:57 -0500
              Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Dr. Who <dr.who@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-23 15:15 +0000
    Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 07:01 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#122522 — How is this answer not self-evident ?

Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#122525

On 8/13/2025 1:47 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/08/2025 07:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/13/2025 12:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> I can directly see that that when HHH(DD) is executed
>> that this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
>> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again.
> 
> 
> ...and when HHH eventually reports?
> 
> But of course that's self-evident.
> 

The above execution trace seems self-evident to me.
Do you see this now that it has been pointed out?

Three different LLM systems did figure out that
execution trace on their own.

Line 996 matches the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

Its not as self-evident, yet all three LLM systems
recognized that this pattern has been matched and I
did not even tell them that this pattern exists.

The initial post in this thread was the entire basis
that these three LLM systems had.

https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c

https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c

https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141 



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122529 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies

On 8/13/2025 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:16:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
> 
>> On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing
>>>>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of
>>>>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>> False, main() is calling DD().
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD
>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been
>>>>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore
>>>>>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has
>>>>>> different behavior than DD().
>>>>>
>>>>> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem
>>>>> proofs are correct!
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the
>>>> way that Turing machines actually work.
>>>>
>>>> When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability to
>>>> see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>
>>> A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing
>>> Machines.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C
>> functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are
>> false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions
>> forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion.
>>
>> That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to
>> prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right.
> 
> No, it means there are proofs proving the Halting Problem is undecidable
> without reference to Turing Machines.
> 
> /Flibble

None of the conventional proofs prove halting
undecidability no matter how they do it.

This also includes the membership algorithm for
recursively enumerable languages that depends
on the halting problem proof result.

This also includes Rice's Theorem that depends
on the halting problem proof result.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122530

What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122531

Am 14.08.2025 um 08:40 schrieb Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.

Pete seems to often have this tendency to consider things self-evident.
Usually, these are things that others don't think about because they're
irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122532

On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.

It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully engaged.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122533 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/14/2025 8:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.
> 
> It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
> the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
> In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
> Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
> always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully engaged.

<Input to LLM systems>
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

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

What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
<Input to LLM systems>

*The above was self-evident to three LLM systems*
I still find that it is absurd that no one here can
figure out something as simple as recursive simulation.

Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
on their own without prompting that such a pattern even exists.

    The simulation shows DD calling HHH(DD) repeatedly
    This creates an infinite recursive loop in the simulation
    No simulated execution path leads to DD's return statement
    being reached
    https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c

    In other words, simulating DD() requires simulating
    HHH(DD), which requires simulating DD() again… recursive
    simulation.

    This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
    simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
    itself again, and again, and again…
    https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c

    When HHH simulates DD, it must model DD's execution,
    including the call to HHH(DD) within DD.
    This introduces a recursive simulation: HHH simulating
    DD involves simulating DD's call to HHH(DD), which
    requires HHH to simulate DD again, and so on.
  
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141 



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122534 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 14.08.2025 um 16:17 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/14/2025 8:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.
>>
>> It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
>> the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
>> In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
>> Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
>> always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully engaged.
> 
> <Input to LLM systems>
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
> return 0.
> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
> <Input to LLM systems>
> 
> *The above was self-evident to three LLM systems*
> I still find that it is absurd that no one here can
> figure out something as simple as recursive simulation.
> 
> Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
> trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
> *recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
> on their own without prompting that such a pattern even exists.
> 
>     The simulation shows DD calling HHH(DD) repeatedly
>     This creates an infinite recursive loop in the simulation
>     No simulated execution path leads to DD's return statement
>     being reached
>     https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
> 
>     In other words, simulating DD() requires simulating
>     HHH(DD), which requires simulating DD() again… recursive
>     simulation.
> 
>     This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
>     simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
>     itself again, and again, and again…
>     https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
> 
>     When HHH simulates DD, it must model DD's execution,
>     including the call to HHH(DD) within DD.
>     This introduces a recursive simulation: HHH simulating
>     DD involves simulating DD's call to HHH(DD), which
>     requires HHH to simulate DD again, and so on.
> 
> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
> eedd0f09e141
> 
> 

This whole thread is sheer nonsense. Your summer too hot??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122612 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 14.08.2025 um 18:54 schrieb minforth:
> Am 14.08.2025 um 16:17 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/14/2025 8:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.
>>>
>>> It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
>>> the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
>>> In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
>>> Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
>>> always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully engaged.
>>
>> <Input to LLM systems>
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
>> return 0.
>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>
>> *The above was self-evident to three LLM systems*
>> I still find that it is absurd that no one here can
>> figure out something as simple as recursive simulation.
>>
>> Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
>> trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
>> *recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
>> on their own without prompting that such a pattern even exists.
>>
>>     The simulation shows DD calling HHH(DD) repeatedly
>>     This creates an infinite recursive loop in the simulation
>>     No simulated execution path leads to DD's return statement
>>     being reached
>>     https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
>>
>>     In other words, simulating DD() requires simulating
>>     HHH(DD), which requires simulating DD() again… recursive
>>     simulation.
>>
>>     This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
>>     simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
>>     itself again, and again, and again…
>>     https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
>>
>>     When HHH simulates DD, it must model DD's execution,
>>     including the call to HHH(DD) within DD.
>>     This introduces a recursive simulation: HHH simulating
>>     DD involves simulating DD's call to HHH(DD), which
>>     requires HHH to simulate DD again, and so on.
>>
>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
>> eedd0f09e141
>>
>>
> 
> This whole thread is sheer nonsense. Your summer too hot??

No, pete has a psychosis or is manic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122616 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 8/23/2025 2:35 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 14.08.2025 um 18:54 schrieb minforth:
>> Am 14.08.2025 um 16:17 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/14/2025 8:06 AM, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 2025-08-14 02:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>> What exactly is “self-evident” supposed to mean? Please explain.
>>>>
>>>> It means that the message providing the answer contains, in itself, all
>>>> the evidence anyone needs to easily determine that the answer is true.
>>>> In practice, it is often used when the answer is not actually true.
>>>> Compare with a "no-brainer", where, in practice, the decision is almost
>>>> always not the one that would be chosen if the brain were fully 
>>>> engaged.
>>>
>>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and 
>>> return 0.
>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>> <Input to LLM systems>
>>>
>>> *The above was self-evident to three LLM systems*
>>> I still find that it is absurd that no one here can
>>> figure out something as simple as recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> Three different LLM systems figured out that the execution
>>> trace of DD correctly simulated by HHH does match the
>>> *recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
>>> on their own without prompting that such a pattern even exists.
>>>
>>>     The simulation shows DD calling HHH(DD) repeatedly
>>>     This creates an infinite recursive loop in the simulation
>>>     No simulated execution path leads to DD's return statement
>>>     being reached
>>>     https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
>>>
>>>     In other words, simulating DD() requires simulating
>>>     HHH(DD), which requires simulating DD() again… recursive
>>>     simulation.
>>>
>>>     This creates an infinite regress — HHH cannot finish
>>>     simulating DD() because to simulate it, it must simulate
>>>     itself again, and again, and again…
>>>     https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
>>>
>>>     When HHH simulates DD, it must model DD's execution,
>>>     including the call to HHH(DD) within DD.
>>>     This introduces a recursive simulation: HHH simulating
>>>     DD involves simulating DD's call to HHH(DD), which
>>>     requires HHH to simulate DD again, and so on.
>>>
>>> https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21- 
>>> eedd0f09e141
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This whole thread is sheer nonsense. Your summer too hot??
> 
> No, pete has a psychosis or is manic.
> 

The actual case is that you are too f-cking
stupid to find any mistake in my work.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122617 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:

> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
> stupid to find any mistake in my work.

I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122619 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> 
>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> 
> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.

I beg your pardon?

If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of 
the Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?

*Of course* it matters... IF he's right.

He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.

> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.

You start.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122620 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>
>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> 
> I beg your pardon?
> 
> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?

That has no practical relevance.

> 
> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> 
> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> 
>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> 
> You start.

I don't argue against him in his sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122623 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> > > 
> > > > The actual case is that you are too f-cking
> > > > stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> > > 
> > > I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> > > for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> > 
> > I beg your pardon?
> > 
> > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the 
> > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> 
> That has no practical relevance.
> 
> > 
> > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> > 
> > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> > 
> > > And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> > > against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> > > respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> > 
> > You start.
> 
> I don't argue against him in his sense.

If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122631 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 23.08.2025 um 17:30 schrieb wij:
> On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon?
>>>
>>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
>>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
>>
>> That has no practical relevance.
>>
>>>
>>> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
>>>
>>> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
>>>
>>>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
>>>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
>>>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
>>>
>>> You start.
>>
>> I don't argue against him in his sense.
> 
> If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
> Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.

Don't talk with him, he's an idiot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122637 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 18:46 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 17:30 schrieb wij:
> > On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> > > > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The actual case is that you are too f-cking
> > > > > > stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> > > > > for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> > > > 
> > > > I beg your pardon?
> > > > 
> > > > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
> > > > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> > > 
> > > That has no practical relevance.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> > > > 
> > > > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> > > > 
> > > > > And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> > > > > against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> > > > > respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> > > > 
> > > > You start.
> > > 
> > > I don't argue against him in his sense.
> > 
> > If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
> > Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.
> 
> Don't talk with him, he's an idiot.

That is because you don't know the required knowledge or think you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122638 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 24.08.2025 um 03:52 schrieb wij:
> On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 18:46 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 17:30 schrieb wij:
>>> On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>>>>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>>>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I beg your pardon?
>>>>>
>>>>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
>>>>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
>>>>
>>>> That has no practical relevance.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
>>>>>
>>>>> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
>>>>>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
>>>>>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
>>>>>
>>>>> You start.
>>>>
>>>> I don't argue against him in his sense.
>>>
>>> If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
>>> Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.
>>
>> Don't talk with him, he's an idiot.
> 
> That is because you don't know the required knowledge or think you know.

No, I don't talk to people with delusions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122639 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 04:29 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 24.08.2025 um 03:52 schrieb wij:
> > On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 18:46 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > Am 23.08.2025 um 17:30 schrieb wij:
> > > > On Sat, 2025-08-23 at 17:10 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> > > > > > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
> > > > > > > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The actual case is that you are too f-cking
> > > > > > > > stupid to find any mistake in my work.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> > > > > > > for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I beg your pardon?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
> > > > > > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
> > > > > 
> > > > > That has no practical relevance.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> > > > > > > against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> > > > > > > respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You start.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't argue against him in his sense.
> > > > 
> > > > If you cannot find the error of POOH, crazy or psychosis might be you.
> > > > Why not join the club to see what you though you understand? Maybe none.
> > > 
> > > Don't talk with him, he's an idiot.
> > 
> > That is because you don't know the required knowledge or think you know.
> 
> No, I don't talk to people with delusions.

You still don't get it. How do you know you are not deluded merely by yourself?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122650 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

Am 24.08.2025 um 04:41 schrieb wij:

> You still don't get it. How do you know you are not deluded merely by yourself?

Because I can quickly separate myself from vehement thoughts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#122653 — Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation

On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 12:09 +0200, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 24.08.2025 um 04:41 schrieb wij:
> 
> > You still don't get it. How do you know you are not deluded merely by yourself?
> 
> Because I can quickly separate myself from vehement thoughts.

Indifference, suppression or spirit skill?

See the post "How do you prove Halting Problem in C/C++?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web