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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:15:12 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <71b8cc07b9a212cebedd811136e517d62743b0f2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me> <vp24ev$1namo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp2dlj$1p9f5$3@dont-email.me> <vp4dbk$27ck7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me>
 <cbd36c413ae64eda332af99a78df166b6be6f929@i2pn2.org>
 <vp65kh$2i21v$1@dont-email.me>
 <38c454ef509bfa2b4725066054c451a0bfe5aa1f@i2pn2.org>
 <vpbi08$3mfi7$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:15:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1245905"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vpbi08$3mfi7$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8938
Lines: 133

On 2/21/25 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/20/2025 3:56 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:56:17 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/19/2025 8:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-termination of HHH is stipulated to be correctly rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming
>>>>>>>>>>> language can see this. People that are not experts get confused
>>>>>>>>>>> by the loop after the "if" statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of
>>>>>>>>>> itself it sees called does that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
>>>>>>>>> deficient than I ever imagined.
>>>>>>>>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH that
>>>>>>>>> sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation none of
>>>>>>>>> them do because they all have the exact same code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is
>>>>>>>> changed to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does
>>>>>>>> not understand that a modification of a program makes a change.
>>>>>>>> Such a change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-
>>>>>>>> termination behaviour has disappeared with this change and only
>>>>>>>> remains in his dreams. After this change, the simulation would
>>>>>>>> terminate normally and HHH should no longer abort. But it does,
>>>>>>>> because the code that detects the 'special condition' has a bug,
>>>>>>>> which makes that it does not see that the program has been changed
>>>>>>>> into a halting program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>>>>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>>>>>> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott
>>>>>> ignores it when it is addressed.
>>>>>> What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program
>>>>>> DD up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to
>>>>>> complete the simulation, it still fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> It fails In the same way that every CAD system will never correctly
>>>>> represent a geometric circle that has four equal length sides in the
>>>>> same two dimensional plane.
>>>>
>>>> But no one asks for that, because it is meaningless.
>>>> Asking if a program will halt is not meaningless.
>>>>
>>> When is formulated to be a self-contradictory it is the same as the CAD
>>> requirement.
>> Self-contradiction doesn’t depend on the formulation.
>>
> 
> Mere ignorance on your part.
> 

No, it shows the ignorance on *YOUR* part.

It seems you just don't the meaning of the words, so you don't 
understand the "formulation".

Since you have shown you don't even know what a "program" means, or 
"truth", you have no basis to make you claims.