Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,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 18:38:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <103p9b5$102fp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <103mrs1$ar3e$1@dont-email.me> <103nc57$esoq$1@dont-email.me>
 <103p034$tj08$1@dont-email.me> <103p4sq$v0hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <103p6ba$v14j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:38:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b153097b843572b5867bd33be39aa70";
	logging-data="1051129"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19xbtbbBoFT8QCY8PwcPRN2yc1zCOEMcx4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aVVsdHDoim6IIJ3jays+7DklR3w=
In-Reply-To: <103p6ba$v14j$1@dont-email.me>

On 28/06/2025 17:47, olcott wrote:
> On 6/28/2025 11:22 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 28/06/2025 16:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/27/2025 7:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2025 20:36, olcott wrote:
>>>>> I am only here for the validation of the behavior
>>>>> of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have included proof that the people on comp.theory
>>>>> lied about this at the bottom.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/27/2025 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>  > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com
>>>>>  > wrote:
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  >> I know that DDD .... simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>  >> possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement
>>>>>  >> final halt state because the execution trace
>>>>>  >> conclusively proves this.
>>>>>  >
>>>>>  > Everybody else knows this, too, and nobody has
>>>>>  > said otherwise. *The conclusion is that the*
>>>>>  > *simulation by HHH is incorrect*
>>>>>  >
>>>>>
>>>>> *That last sentence is an intentional falsehood*
>>>>
>>>> Well, people here use the term "simulation" in a number of ways, right? 
>>>
>>> *There is only one correct way*
>>
>> That's patently rubbish.
>>
>> This is one of your major cognitive mistakes - believing that the squiggles which make up words 
>> have an absolute meaning independently of the people using them to (hopefully) communicate.
>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The correct simulation of DDD by HHH means that HHH simulates
>>> DDD and then emulates itself simulating DDD a number of times
>>> according to the semantics of C.
>>
>> "a number of times"???
>>
> 
> Do you know what a number is?
> In this case I am referring to every non-negative integer.
> 
>> a)   Does a correct simulation need to simulate until its target computation terminates?
>>
> 
> There is no target computation here we only have the
> behavior that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies.
> 

ok I see you intend to be completely non-responsive, just as you were in the "diverging simulations" 
thread.

I'll just point out for the record that you haven't provided any justification for accusing Alan or 
anybody else of lying to you.  Indeed, your responses just show that you have no clue what other 
people are saying to you!

Mike.