Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:08:48 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <102tvn0$31jro$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org> <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me> <102ovlm$1jq9i$1@dont-email.me> <102pikk$1odus$4@dont-email.me> <102retk$2ai8v$1@dont-email.me> <102rqqi$2doc9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:08:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b9189706bebe16779078fa6281ff557";
	logging-data="3198840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EoJuVG42BsgvLbzSsa3/i"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6/oQtVlxATtpmAMAwUA0hc+d0Zo=

On 2025-06-17 13:33:05 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/17/2025 5:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-16 17:01:08 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/16/2025 6:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-16 00:57:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> 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*
>>>> 
>>>> No, that is not how you 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.
>>>> 
>>>> How does ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH differ form some
>>>> other simulating termination alalyzer?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I changed the evaluation from the HHH that I have coded
>>> to every HHH that could possibly exist.
>> 
>> Tnat means that you think the program
>> 
>> int HHH((void *)x(void)) {
>>  return 1;
>> }
>> 
>> when called with HHH(DDD) would return 0
>> 
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>> 
>> to indicate that DDD does not halt?
>> 
> 
> Your HHH is not s simulating termination analyzer as required:

Your "every HHH that could possibly exist" does not mention simulation.

-- 
Mikko