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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:48:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:48:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="626721"; 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: 5963
Lines: 81

Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:37:54 -0600 schrieb 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.
I mean, this is a deterministic program without any static variables,
amirite?

> 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.
-- 
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.