Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:56:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <38c454ef509bfa2b4725066054c451a0bfe5aa1f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@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> <vp24ev$1namo$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp2dlj$1p9f5$3@dont-email.me> <vp4dbk$27ck7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me>
	<cbd36c413ae64eda332af99a78df166b6be6f929@i2pn2.org>
	<vp65kh$2i21v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:56:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="914381"; 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: 8415
Lines: 123

Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:56:17 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/19/2025 8:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/19/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is
>>>>>> changed to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does
>>>>>> not understand that a modification of a program makes a change.
>>>>>> Such a change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-
>>>>>> termination behaviour has disappeared with this change and only
>>>>>> remains in his dreams. After this change, the simulation would
>>>>>> terminate normally and HHH should no longer abort. But it does,
>>>>>> because the code that detects the 'special condition' has a bug,
>>>>>> which makes that it does not see that the program has been changed
>>>>>> into a halting program.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>>>> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>>>>
>>>> It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott
>>>> ignores it when it is addressed.
>>>> What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program
>>>> DD up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to
>>>> complete the simulation, it still fails.
>>>
>>> It fails In the same way that every CAD system will never correctly
>>> represent a geometric circle that has four equal length sides in the
>>> same two dimensional plane.
>>
>> But no one asks for that, because it is meaningless.
>> Asking if a program will halt is not meaningless.
>> 
> When is formulated to be a self-contradictory it is the same as the CAD
> requirement.
Self-contradiction doesn’t depend on the formulation.

-- 
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.