From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/16/2025 11:13 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Nov 2025 10:45:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/16/2025 10:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 16 Nov 2025 10:15:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

The question is not:
Can H reach its own final halt state?
The question is:
Can D simulated by H reach its simulated final halt state?

The second includes the first.

It in not the job of H to report on its own behavior. H is the test
program that only reports on the program under test.

Yes it is. H, as a part of D, is also under test. That’s why you’re simulating it.

When an input cheats and calls its own decider
the decider cannot allow itself to be conned
thus still must report that D simulated by H
cannot possibly terminate normally.

My 28 year long goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--
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 11/17/2025 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-11-16 16:15:43 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/16/2025 9:39 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:12:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:

The Program under test and test program are separate.

D includes H.

The question is not:
Can H reach its own final halt state?
The question is:
Can D simulated by H reach its simulated final halt state?

If the question H is designed to answer is either one the
H is not a halt decider. The question a halt decider would
answer is:
Does D halt if fully executed?

Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.

That the information that HHH is required to report
on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
the requirements wrong.
--
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 Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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 Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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 Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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 Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

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