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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:14:13 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <21eb3ee9499517e960a03adcf3b63d2967453982@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$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>
 <a8b150912bc326cd01c9e9ee89762d12b9fc571e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpm6hq$2dvrs$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:14:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1865144"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vpm6hq$2dvrs$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 14472
Lines: 280

On 2/25/25 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/25/25 9:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/25 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2025 8:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-24 23:36:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 2:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-23 17:44:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-22 16:11:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-21 22:35:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2025 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 21:31:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-18 11:26:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing above shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to some other DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming knows that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn’t a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analysers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects any input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because we *know* that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have your cake and eat it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it does not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate abnormally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those two comments are not discussed below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That cannot be determined without examination of HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope of OP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code for a few years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more years has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OP had a pointer of that code but didn's state that that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code is a part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the problem. OP did not spacify any range for variation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have only been talking about variations of the same code
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as HHH(DD) for two years. Do you understand that one sentence?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I understnd the sentence except the word "variations". What 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> range of "variations"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Good you are being completely reasonable.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========