Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own
 "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 12:27:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <103p8m5$vpr7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103mrs1$ar3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <80aa46a1ad3397065e575771d1ebe57f6a5c5588.camel@gmail.com>
 <103p0ad$tj08$2@dont-email.me> <103p0sf$tnu1$1@dont-email.me>
 <103p11e$u0ef$1@dont-email.me> <103p18v$tnu1$2@dont-email.me>
 <103p1qp$u424$1@dont-email.me> <103p2c5$tnu1$3@dont-email.me>
 <103p2o7$u9sa$1@dont-email.me> <103p34p$tnu1$4@dont-email.me>
 <103p3oj$u9sa$2@dont-email.me> <103p7s4$vm5t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:27:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c5709712fc7771c125bfe4c60a9c3b1";
	logging-data="1042279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fR2EEkCc5LonVA5YBRfQ9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3QnIF4RdULE/U8gW6UsVzjmCupU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103p7s4$vm5t$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250628-4, 6/28/2025), Outbound message

On 6/28/2025 12:13 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/28/2025 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/28/2025 10:52 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/28/2025 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/2025 10:39 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/28/2025 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 10:21 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am only here for the validation of the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The definition of HHH is missing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The definition is specified in this part that you
>>>>>>>>>> dishonestly erased:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>>>>>>>  > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>>>>>>>>  > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>>>>>>>>  > and returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dishonest one here is YOU, as it was not wij who snipped 
>>>>>>>>> the below in his reply but YOU:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I stop at the first counter-factual mistake so I stop here.
>>>>>>>> Everything else is ignored.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, you INTENTIONALLY don't read things that prove 
>>>>>>> you wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>  > The definition of HHH is missing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>  > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>>>  > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>>>>  > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>>>>  > and returns 0.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the definition of HHH was
>>>>>> provided thus the claim that it was not provided is
>>>>>> counter factual.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you didn't give a definition of HHH, just gave a vauge 
>>>>> incomplete description of what you think it does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It completely defines the generic notion of a simulating
>>>> termination analyzer and
>>>>
>>>> It specifies every detail about HHH that is required
>>>> to correctly determine whether or not DDD correctly
>>>> simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own simulated
>>>> "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But why would you say that when you've admitted on the record (see 
>>> below) that DDD is not in fact correctly simulated by HHH?
>>>
>>
>> *I am not going to tolerate any misdirection to any other points*
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> The only point relevant to this forum is that DDD correctly
>> simulated by HHH 
> 
> Is something that you have admitted on the record doesn't happen:
> 

*This is the only point that I will address*
*Any attempt at changing the subject will*
*be construed as dishonest*

int main()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   DDD();
}

Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

Within the above specification DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.

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