Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2dd4a1bd3eb9d1a15bcf362551f52b4343fabd60@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
	<voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
	<voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
	<vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
	<e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
	<vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
	<7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
	<vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
	<50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
	<vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
	<cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
	<voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
	<e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
	<vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
	<ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
	<vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
	<vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
	<voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
	<voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:50:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="300144"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6384
Lines: 86

Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:21:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon


>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next
>>>>>>>>>>> month will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I
>>>>>>>>>>> will totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it
>>>>>>>> cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort
>>>>>>>> the correct simulation before it sees that the correct simulation
>>>>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition.
>>>>>>> it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot
>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a
>>>>>> 2 years old child.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it
>>>>> specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate
>>>>> normally.
>>>>>
>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are no
>>>> substitute for reasoning.
>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does
>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program
>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>
>>> It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
>>> (a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation after itself is no longer
>>> being simulated.
>>>
>>> (b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation of none of them do.
>> Which does not change the fact that simulating HHH does not see that
>> the simulated HHH would also abort,
> 
> The simulated HHH cannot possibly abort because it can't possibly get to
> the point where it sees that it needs to abort because it is aborted
> before it gets to this point.
Yes, but why does it need to be stopped before it halts? 

> Unless the outermost HHH aborts before any inner HHH sees that it needs 
> to abort no HHH ever aborts.
True. No HHH should ever abort.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.