Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
 configurations +++
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:18:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <102rtfn$2doc9$6@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6221b91da87b035b8621079cee4cf6a4dc4abe6@i2pn2.org>
 <1026s46$j3rp$4@dont-email.me> <10296qc$17rpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029le9$1ah2f$7@dont-email.me> <102bep1$1sc5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c2qk$20jl4$6@dont-email.me> <102h202$3dls5$1@dont-email.me>
 <102k0aa$793t$7@dont-email.me> <102m4d4$r0nu$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mnv8$uef9$13@dont-email.me> <102p0e8$1k1fb$1@dont-email.me>
 <102q1a8$1shmm$2@dont-email.me> <102rd88$2a3uk$1@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 16:18:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26";
	logging-data="2548105"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197/d9boAYccLPi1oThfdlg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rv6MAGIQMJTezEdt/oDzbUGbOeE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250617-2, 6/17/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <102rd88$2a3uk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/17/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-16 21:11:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/16/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-15 15:13:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/15/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-14 14:17:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:11:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get that LIE from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am no so stupid that I require a complete
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a non-terminating input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH
>>>>>>>>>> to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>> own "return" statement final halt state. This by itself
>>>>>>>> *is* complete proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. The words "cannot possibly" are not sufficiently
>>>>>>> meaningful to prove anything. HHH does what it does and does
>>>>>>> not what it does not. But what it can or cannot do, possiby or
>>>>>>> otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is required that one have the technical competence of
>>>>>> a first year CS student that knows C to understand that
>>>>>> it is self-evident that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>>>> behavior such that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach its simulated "return" statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning of "self-evident" excludes all requirements of
>>>>> any technical competence.
>>>>>
>>>>> The meaning of "cannot possibly", if there is any, is too far from
>>>>> clear that a sentence containing it could be self-evident.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Where DDD is correctly simulated by HHH is
>>>> merely a more complex form of this same pattern:
>>>>
>>>> void H()
>>>> {
>>>>    D();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> void D()
>>>> {
>>>>    H();
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>>
>>> But I'm afraid you may forget.
>>
>> I have never seen any agreement form you for anything
>> that I have ever said.
> 
> You rarely say anything one could agree without looking stupid.
> 

It seems to me that you are only interested in rebuttal.
That is not an honest dialogue.

>> If you agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>> a non-halting sequence of configurations we can move
>> on to the next step.
> 
> It does not make sense to say "a non-halting sequence of configurations".
> That sequence cannot halt because it is not running. If you mean that
> the sequence is infinitely long then say so.
> 

In other words you baselessly reject the whole
notion of simulating termination analyzers.
That this rejection is baseless seems dishonest.

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