Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- very stupid
 requirement
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:00:21 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <21353b7fd608f5ece53272d3e9b908d25969a1eb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me> <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
 <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me> <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me>
 <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me> <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn9eu$2jkdj$4@dont-email.me>
 <456fe60036f85dd602289d0790b9c4768aa531b1@i2pn2.org>
 <vpoq0n$2vaf3$3@dont-email.me>
 <e43723a13b3c6e7073f433e21c2aad628cb95d16@i2pn2.org>
 <vpq06m$35jvb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2112681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpq06m$35jvb$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4794
Lines: 79

On 2/27/25 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact
>>>>>>> that HHH emulates this DD.
>>>>>> On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
>>>>>> You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>>>>> Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the
>>>>> one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this
>>>>> input.
>>>> No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls
>>>> that simulator.
> 
>>> In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to get
>>> stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.
> 
>> I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite recursion.
>>
> 
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
> 
> 
> The C function, termination analyzer, software engineering
> isomorphism to the Peter Linz computer science halting
> problem proof is what makes the infinite recursion in both cases.

Nope. Just proves you are just a stupid pathological liar.

If HHH does a correct emulation, then it never answers and fails to be a 
termination analyzer.

If HHH does abort its emulation, then we can show that it will also 
return to DD and thus DD will ha]lt.

Only in your stupidity where HHH can be two different programs at the 
same time, doing to contradictory action can you "prove" your point.

This shows that you are just too stupid to know what you are doing,

> 
> Page 3 versus page 5
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
> 
> Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
> must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
> 

No, it is just a fact that your idea that a partial emulation defines 
behavor is just stupid, or you are so stupid you think a program can be 
two different programs at the same time.

Sorry, your "logic" is just based on your assumption that the Truth 
Fairy can magically make your errors go away and let your lies become truth,

But all it does is prove that you are a pathological liar that is too 
stupid to understand what he says,