Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:30:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:30:50 -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: 4059
Lines: 47

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.

-- 
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.