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: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:21:42 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1030ham$3p6le$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> <102rv4v$2doc9$10@dont-email.me> <a7c6eeed9e518117bdb41797444fd7c27cca012d@i2pn2.org> <102ukn2$369b2$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:21:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3795b2b31d9ed69cd0c8b5cdd7fda16b";
	logging-data="3971758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JOMKYr96NhcHyeIdW1v+8"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pGFX/jD7SGIRxQXbfb3iJtwdjk8=

On 2025-06-18 15:07:14 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/17/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/17/25 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> No, they understand that a pattern seen is a halting program (since you 
>> admit that DDD halts when run directly) can't be a pattern that proves 
>> the program is non-halting.
> 
> You changed the subject from THIS EXACT POINT
> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted*
> (a) YES that is true
> (b) No that is not true

No, he did not. The paragraph responded to was about first year CS
students and what know, and so is the response.

-- 
Mikko