Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not
 halt
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:41:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v45i42$3h641$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me> <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44qin$3g17f$5@i2pn2.org> <v44ru8$3m841$3@dont-email.me>
 <v44usm$3g17f$6@i2pn2.org> <v45fq4$3sv37$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45h1l$3h642$1@i2pn2.org> <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:41:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3709057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v45h88$3tjc2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4120
Lines: 80

On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01   void HHH(ptr
>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>> 02   {
>>>>>>> 03     P(I);
>>>>>>> 04     return;
>>>>>>> 05   }
>>>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>> 08   {
>>>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>> 10     return;
>>>>>>> 11   }
>>>>>>> 12 13   int main()
>>>>>>> 14   {
>>>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>> 16   }
>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return 
>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite 
>>>>> recursion is
>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. 
>>>
>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>
>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct execution "correct".
>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>
>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>
>>
>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect logic, so you 
>> are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>
> 
> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual agreement
> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or otherwise.
> 

So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you need to 
clearify the meaning of it.

People won't normally agree to something they don't fully understand, 
and even less if they think it is wrong.

To say people need to trust your meaning is a joke, as you have proven 
that you words is worthless, and you knowledge of what you talk about 
even less.

If your proof requires people to accept something with baddly defined 
terms only to have those term clarified later, either you can move that 
defintion up earler, or if that only works because you have gotten them 
to accept the poorly defined version, that shows that it was based on a 
circular definition, and thus doesn't actually meet even your definition 
of truth.

Since you can only prove things by connecting them to accepted truths, 
you start with the things that are near to the accepted truths and show 
their connections, and then move along.

If your proof has a loop, then it isn't actually a proof, but a unsound 
circular argument.