Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:34:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <1036jf0$14sj8$2@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> <1030ham$3p6le$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a5p$3u901$10@dont-email.me> <10336ga$ll5a$1@dont-email.me>
 <10344o2$4ms9$4@dont-email.me> <1035vs7$10gi9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:34:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c33a34d5810729869e79acc5a916ae39";
	logging-data="1208936"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19W5D4pLomOzS04mpLy1ibO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zDW4nRfYhpjo80LIIqmRZkIU7dI=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250621-4, 6/21/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1035vs7$10gi9$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/21/2025 5:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-20 17:11:30 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/20/2025 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-19 15:25:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> My claim is that each of the above functions correctly
>>>> simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly
>>>> exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.
>>>> Can you affirm or correctly refute this?
>>>
>>> Now you are changed the topic.
>>
>> That is what I said (less clearly) all along.
> 
> No, you accused that it was someone else. But that does not matter
> anymore as you now admit that you did it.
> 

I have been saying the exact same thing for at least
three years and have been merely making my words more
clear.

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