From Newsgroup: comp.theory

I am only referring to the mental execution trace
of D simulated by H performing this trace in C as
specified below.

Any attempt to diverge from this will be called
out as the strawman deception.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Here are the precise words of my claim that I spent
several months perfecting on the basis of feedback.
I mean these words 100% exactly and precisely as
stated.

D simulated by H according to the semantics of C
programming language (until H sees the repeating
pattern) does enable H to report that its simulated
input cannot possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement final halt state.
*H is a correct termination analyzer for D*

For the last three years every single review of my
work by dozens and dozens of people always replaced
the words that I actually said with different words
and formed their rebuttal on that basis.
--
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.theory

On Sat, 01 Nov 2025 13:51:54 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only referring to the mental execution trace of D simulated by H performing this trace in C as specified below.

Any attempt to diverge from this will be called out as the strawman deception.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Here are the precise words of my claim that I spent several months
perfecting on the basis of feedback.
I mean these words 100% exactly and precisely as stated.

D simulated by H according to the semantics of C programming language
(until H sees the repeating pattern) does enable H to report that its simulated input cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
*H is a correct termination analyzer for D*

For the last three years every single review of my work by dozens and
dozens of people always replaced the words that I actually said with different words and formed their rebuttal on that basis.

If H reports non-halting then D halts ergo H is wrong.

/Flibble
--
meet ever shorter deadlines, known as "beat the clock"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 11/1/2025 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2025 13:51:54 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only referring to the mental execution trace of D simulated by H
performing this trace in C as specified below.

Any attempt to diverge from this will be called out as the strawman
deception.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Here are the precise words of my claim that I spent several months
perfecting on the basis of feedback.
I mean these words 100% exactly and precisely as stated.

D simulated by H according to the semantics of C programming language
(until H sees the repeating pattern) does enable H to report that its
simulated input cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
*H is a correct termination analyzer for D*

For the last three years every single review of my work by dozens and
dozens of people always replaced the words that I actually said with
different words and formed their rebuttal on that basis.

If H reports non-halting then D halts ergo H is wrong.

/Flibble

*plonk* (In Thunderbird this is setting a message filter).
--
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.theory

On Sat, 01 Nov 2025 15:19:47 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 11/1/2025 3:13 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2025 13:51:54 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only referring to the mental execution trace of D simulated by H
performing this trace in C as specified below.

Any attempt to diverge from this will be called out as the strawman
deception.

int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

Here are the precise words of my claim that I spent several months
perfecting on the basis of feedback.
I mean these words 100% exactly and precisely as stated.

D simulated by H according to the semantics of C programming language
(until H sees the repeating pattern) does enable H to report that its
simulated input cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.
*H is a correct termination analyzer for D*

For the last three years every single review of my work by dozens and
dozens of people always replaced the words that I actually said with
different words and formed their rebuttal on that basis.

If H reports non-halting then D halts ergo H is wrong.

/Flibble

*plonk* (In Thunderbird this is setting a message filter).

In other words have you got nothing and have lost the argument.

/Flibble
--
meet ever shorter deadlines, known as "beat the clock"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

I am only referring to the mental execution trace

Your mental execution trace isn't worth a fuck.

What you showed with real execution traces was
exposed to be bunk.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 2025-11-01 18:51:54 +0000, olcott said:

I am only referring to the mental execution trace
of D simulated by H performing this trace in C as
specified below.

The subject line and the message are about the author, not about
computations or computtion theory, and therefore off-topic for
comp.theory.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2