Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
 --- Saving Democracy
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 07:18:32 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <550ca7cb7170bec2ee9dfa5a3282bb677a4f5564@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgded$nkbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgdn8$nlei$1@dont-email.me> <vpgh33$o4p7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpghkq$o82o$1@dont-email.me> <vpgk2q$okhu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgo94$p8he$1@dont-email.me> <vpgoia$p9vl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgrdl$tdkf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgtb3$tiun$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpgth7$tdkf$3@dont-email.me> <vpgufr$truc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpguru$tdkf$4@dont-email.me> <vpgvcv$tuuf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vphr67$13hrc$1@dont-email.me> <vpi0rc$14kaj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpi1ni$13hrc$3@dont-email.me> <vpio66$1euhp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpipdj$1f8pm$1@dont-email.me> <vpiujl$1fvqe$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpj1if$1gok4$1@dont-email.me> <vpj5dg$1hb0e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpj683$1gok4$3@dont-email.me> <vpj7ep$1hivf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpj7mh$1gok4$4@dont-email.me> <vpj862$1hivf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpj8fo$1gok4$5@dont-email.me> <vpj94u$1hivf$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpj99o$1gok4$6@dont-email.me> <vpjeov$1nj05$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpjf69$1gok4$7@dont-email.me> <vpjfe3$1nnh0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:18:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1712272"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpjfe3$1nnh0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5773
Lines: 109

On 2/24/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical (imaginary never implemented)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH that never aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by 
>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> performs a correct unaborted simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never
>>>>>>>>>>> terminate conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never 
>>>>>>>>>> terminate conclusively proves that no_numbers_greater_than_10 
>>>>>>>>>> specifies behavior that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I will not discuss your code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll let you respond to yourself here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain
>>>>>>>>  > all of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that
>>>>>>>>  > because I am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an
>>>>>>> irrelevant change of subject away from the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is counter-factual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH is 
>>>>>> defined by this code:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>      /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I already corrected you on this misunderstanding.
>>>>> HHH has two versions the real one and the imaginary
>>>>> on that never aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that never 
>>>> aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>
>>> You already said that F halts after ten invocations
>>> and and that F does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> Changing the subject to the direct execution of 
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman 
>> deception.
>>
>> The subject is the correct simulation of no_numbers_greater_than_10  
>> by F.
> 
> Show me all of the code with the > 10
> conditional branch and line numbers and
> a line number by line number execution
> trace or I will write you off as playing head games.
> 
> In a couple of weeks I start cancer treatment
> that has a 7% chance of killing me very quickly.
> 

Why don't you do the same for your HHH?

Where is the claimed diffference in the trace HHH sees vs HHH1 or the 
direct execution?

HHH sees exactly the same trace (up to the point that HHH fails to be a 
pure function, invalidating the resutls) as HHH1 and the direct 
execution, showing that the context of the call doesn't make the 
difference you claim.

Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathologically lying 
hypocrite.