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: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:25:58 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <1038i76$eknd$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> <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> <1036jf0$14sj8$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:25:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="60859ac7620042bf94a2d32aaaaf381d";
	logging-data="479981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19or/pCnyLBiBqUxYcsA24R"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nKNlg0QT60I7eubvVa2eeHdgaD4=

On 2025-06-21 15:34:56 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Anyway, it was you who changed the topic and then falsely
accused someone else.

-- 
Mikko