Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:12:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <102rt44$2doc9$4@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me>
 <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org>
 <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b0f211d64311dca26f3c00cf5fda41bf6ad938b@i2pn2.org>
 <102pnvr$1q95t$1@dont-email.me>
 <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org>
 <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me> <102rddr$29lrl$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:12:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26";
	logging-data="2548105"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oahBvQcdoBM1SdQDc+lwC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M//i3lMppTpvfQbr46MDaNYVEjs=
In-Reply-To: <102rddr$29lrl$5@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250617-2, 6/17/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/17/2025 4:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 17.jun.2025 om 05:07 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/16/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/16/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2025 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/15/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
>>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
>>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it seems you don't understand that the problem is that while, 
>>>>>>> yes, if HHH does infact do a correct simulation, it will not 
>>>>>>> reach a final state, that fact only applie *IF* HHH does that, 
>>>>>>> and all the other HHHs which differ see different inputs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I should have said*
>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>>>> then DDD never reaches its simulated "return" statement
>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that isn't the criteria that the decider is supposed to 
>>>>> answer by, it is just a strawman.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *You merely dishonestly changed the subject*
>>>
>>> No I didn't, the subject is about "Halting"
>>>
>>> Halting is defined for PROGRAMS
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show
>>>> exactly how the below (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this
>>>> challenge and change the subject.
>>>>
>>>>    (a) One of more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>    simulated by some simulating termination analyzer HHH.
>>>>
>>>>    (b) None of the above simulated DDD instances ever
>>>>    reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>
>>> Since that isn't the definition of Halting/Non-Halting, it is just a 
>>> strawman.
>>>
>>> Non-Halting isn't just that a partial simulation doesn't reach a 
>>> final state, and that is what your (a) describes, as to be NOT 
>>> partial, it must simulate *ALL* the instructions.
>>>
>>> The fuller definition of non-halting is that a machine is non-halting 
>>> if it will not reach a final state performing an UNBOUNDED number of 
>>> steps.
>>>
>>
>> In other words you do not understand what every CS graduate
>> would understand: That once a non-halting behavior pattern
>> is correctly matched in a finite number of steps that this
>> conclusively proves non-halting.
> 
> Irrelevant, because such a CS graduate will also understand that a 
> finite recursion is not a pattern for non-halting behaviour.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
   return;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When correctly simulated by HHH none of the above can
possibly reach their own simulated "return" instruction
final halt state in any finite number of steps.

That you don't know this proves that you have less
technical skill than the average CS graduate.

> Your HHH has code to abort and halt, so there is no non-halting pattern 
> in it, because it aborts after a finite number of recursions.
> Or are you still cheating with the Root variable?
> 


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