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: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:44:45 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <103b0lc$14ae0$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$2@dont-email.me> <1038i76$eknd$1@dont-email.me> <103958m$j159$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:44:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ff9eeb82472defb391a609f5929552bc";
	logging-data="1190336"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wIWF+Gndgn7PvM/2UHpQn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZKLJC4/JMEo57v798EA2uf6AHMg=

On 2025-06-22 14:51:02 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/22/2025 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    return;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> int Sipser_D()
> {
>    if (HHH(Sipser_D) == 1)
>      return 0;
>    return 1;
> }
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> 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?

No, as your claim is not clear. You have used HHH in at least
two different meanings and it is not clar what meaning is
applicable here. If you could reformulate your claim so that
its meaning is clear enough I might try.

>> Anyway, it was you who changed the topic and then falsely
>> accused someone else.
> 
> In other words you find my latest words irrefutable
> so you dodge addressing them.

Your "in other words" is an obvious lie. Do you really think anyone
stupid enough to believe that would care what we say?

-- 
Mikko