Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:22:41 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <102u0h1$31pue$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$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> <102rtfn$2doc9$6@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 11:22:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b9189706bebe16779078fa6281ff557";
	logging-data="3205070"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SE4e5cdAK6jG2/6UDRJSz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eV1eVPOhBsck6ZI94Lh4j9hDt7A=

On 2025-06-17 14:18:31 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Honesty and interest are distinct concepts. Apparently you don't
know what they mean (or at least what one of them means).

>>> 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.

Your "in other words" is yet another attempt of a straw man deception.

-- 
Mikko