Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
 configurations +++
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:53:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6e37f2a6ccc3e5277892bd9c8b246037ba2e9894@i2pn2.org>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6221b91da87b035b8621079cee4cf6a4dc4abe6@i2pn2.org>
 <1026s46$j3rp$4@dont-email.me> <10296qc$17rpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029le9$1ah2f$7@dont-email.me> <102bep1$1sc5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c2qk$20jl4$6@dont-email.me> <102h202$3dls5$1@dont-email.me>
 <102k0aa$793t$7@dont-email.me> <102m4d4$r0nu$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mnv8$uef9$13@dont-email.me> <102p0e8$1k1fb$1@dont-email.me>
 <102q1a8$1shmm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="825359"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102q1a8$1shmm$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/16/25 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-15 15:13:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/15/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-14 14:17:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:11:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get that LIE from?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am no so stupid that I require a complete
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a non-terminating input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH
>>>>>>>>> to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>> own "return" statement final halt state. This by itself
>>>>>>> *is* complete proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. The words "cannot possibly" are not sufficiently
>>>>>> meaningful to prove anything. HHH does what it does and does
>>>>>> not what it does not. But what it can or cannot do, possiby or
>>>>>> otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is required that one have the technical competence of
>>>>> a first year CS student that knows C to understand that
>>>>> it is self-evident that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>>> behavior such that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>> possibly reach its simulated "return" statement.
>>>>
>>>> The meaning of "self-evident" excludes all requirements of
>>>> any technical competence.
>>>>
>>>> The meaning of "cannot possibly", if there is any, is too far from
>>>> clear that a sentence containing it could be self-evident.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Where DDD is correctly simulated by HHH is
>>> merely a more complex form of this same pattern:
>>>
>>> void H()
>>> {
>>>    D();
>>> }
>>>
>>> void D()
>>> {
>>>    H();
>>> }
>>
>> Nice to see that you don't disagree.
>>
>> But I'm afraid you may forget.
>>
> 
> I have never seen any agreement form you for anything
> that I have ever said.


Maybe because you are never right?

> 
> If you agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
> a non-halting sequence of configurations we can move
> on to the next step.
> 

But since it doesn't, you have reached a dead end.

Forcing people to agree to lies isn't going to get you very far.