Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
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 11:40:35 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <102u1ij$31q0g$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> <102rcol$29lrl$3@dont-email.me>
 <102rv7h$2doc9$11@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 11:40:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe59beacd6fd352315816fb5d824c89";
	logging-data="3205136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+tj0aPNDXxvnZhyulZwmS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/Gy8oSnocINFF1+OdNevmodflP0=
In-Reply-To: <102rv7h$2doc9$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:48 schreef olcott:
> On 6/17/2025 4:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 16.jun.2025 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> And even a beginner can see that they all fail to reach the end of the 
>> simulation, even though the input is a pointer to code that includes 
>> the code to abort and halt.
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    return;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
And they will also understand that the simulating HHH does not need to 
abort, because the input, the simulated HHH already does the abort.
People that do not understand that the behaviour of a program changes 
when abort code is added are even below the level of a first year CS 
student.
Or are you still cheating with the Root variable, which causes an 
incorrect initialisation of the simulation?