Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:04:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 02:04:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3273011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4703
Lines: 109

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2024 7:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/14/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/14/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if 
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>>>>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>>>>>> with arithmetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if HHH does abort 
>>>>>
>>>>> int x = 5;
>>>>> int y = 3;
>>>>> if (x > y) // *before abort*
>>>>> {
>>>>>    printf("x > y is necessarily true\n");
>>>>>    y = 2 * x;  // *after abort*
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Red Hering, showin your utter stupidity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words giving up on you was the correct thing
>>> to do. You have proven to be incorrigible when you
>>> consistently deny tautologies.
>>>
>>
>> No, you dont have tautologies, 
> 
> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
> of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.

Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your argument 
because you have misdefined what the input is.

The input to HHH is ALL of the memory that it would be accessed in a 
correct simulation of DDD, which includes all the codd of HHH, and thus, 
if you change HHH you get a different input.

If you want to try to claim the input is just the bytes of the function 
DDD proper then you are just admitting that you are nothing more than a 
lying idiot that doesn't understand the problem, and who refuses to 
understand the problem, and that EVERYTHING you have said over the years 
has been based on a LIE that your problem has been setup as an 
equivelent to the proofs you want to try to refute.


YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A STUPID LIAR.

> 
>> but LIE based on changing the meaning of words.
>>
> 
> That is what you have been doing.
> 

Nope YOU are the one that has been changing the meaning of the words, as 
you don't use them with the meaning they have in the field.

That makes YOU the liar.