Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:46:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 23:46:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3273011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3642
Lines: 84

On 7/14/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/14/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if 
>>>> HHH(DDD) does,
>>>
>>>
>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>
>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>> with arithmetic.
>>>
>>
>> But if HHH does abort 
> 
> int x = 5;
> int y = 3;
> if (x > y) // *before abort*
> {
>    printf("x > y is necessarily true\n");
>    y = 2 * x;  // *after abort*
> }
> 
> 
> 

Red Hering, showin your utter stupidity.

The behavior of a given DDD (as determined by its full code) is fixed an 
immutable and HHH can;t "change" it.

Note, a given HHH has fixed behavior, and that establishes the behavior 
of the DDD that calls it.

THus, if this HHH aborts its simulation, it was always going to abort 
its simulation and always will abort its simulation, and thus every DDD 
that calls that HHH will be returned to and it will halt.

You just don't seem to understand the basic definition of a program, and 
seem to want to give them volition and mutability, things programs don't 
have.

Of course, you have also admitted that your whole system is based on the 
LIE that your setup actually is equivalent to the proofs you are trying 
to rebute, when you admit they are not as you want DDD to not actually 
be considered to include the code of HHH as part of itself, so you never 
were actually talking about actual programs, but some undefined abomination.

THAT shows your total depravity about truth and logic.