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: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 07:06:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <39d275044eb1883f7ff2b7cd75a43ab064aeb8de@i2pn2.org>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me> <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me> <vvdo96$3lapa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdr87$3n3t4$1@dont-email.me> <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me> <vvehuu$g8eg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvej0u$g8jo$1@dont-email.me> <vvfv4c$13nqj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvg1id$14bdu$1@dont-email.me> <vvgirs$18j74$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvgjic$18j1i$3@dont-email.me> <vvglgj$18r3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvgooc$1a47o$1@dont-email.me> <vvh6o0$1h0e8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvh8js$1gq2p$6@dont-email.me>
 <43c25b08b020d2f0161af36b4ba2e98dc8a08951@i2pn2.org>
 <vvheg5$1hom3$6@dont-email.me> <vvhf3h$1hp80$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnj$1il1i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 11:22:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3647871"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvhfnj$1il1i$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3492
Lines: 47

On 5/8/25 1:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2025 12:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 08/05/2025 06:12, olcott wrote:
>>> It is like you never heard of infinite recursion.
>>
>> I'm sure he has.
>>
>> On a computer, there's no such thing.
>>
>> Oh, we can /describe/ such a thing:
>>
>> foo(){foo();}
>>
>> or, if you prefer:
>>
>> void bar(void);foo(){bar();}bar(){foo();}
>>
>> but it never gets more than a yard off the starting line before it 
>> breaks. On systems where function calls are facilitated by pushing 
>> return addresses onto a stack, the stack rapidly runs out of space, 
>> and a good OS will trip it up before Bad Things can happen.
>>
>> If you think you have "an essentially infinite recursion relationship" 
>> you're only fooling yourself, nobody else.
>>
> 
> We are testing the basic elements of key algorithms
> in the concrete model of computation of the x86 language,
> we have no need to look at memory requirements. The C
> functions are proxies for Turing Machines.

No, they are not, as they don't have the required properties.

In particular, to be a proxy for Turing Machines, they should be "pure 
functions" and "complete". Since your D refers to something that isn't 
part of itself or its input, (that is your H) it isn't a proper proxie.

> 
> I hate tedious details. I specific the gist of ideas
> so that the rest can be easily inferred.
>

And that is why you don't find truth. You need to work with a valid gist 
of the ideas.

All you are doing is trying to justify you lies.