Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:32:07 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <24e75f0308da2fd6a08d00b631e70ab54b952df3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$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>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:32:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="696718"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6622
Lines: 114

On 2/18/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly 
>>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language
>>> can see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop
>>> after the "if" statement.
>>>
>>
>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of itself it 
>> sees called does that.
>>
> 
> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
> deficient than I ever imagined.
> 
> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH
> that sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation
> none of them do because they all have the exact same code.
> 
> 
> 

And you miss, that since the first does it, all of them do it, and thus 
are haltingt.

You seem to thing that the behavior of a program is defined by an 
aborted partial simulation of it, instead of its actual behavior.

Sorry, you are just proving how STUPID you are, and that you "logic" is 
just a FRAUD.