Path: ...!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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:33:44 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <74c89a86ded3d86026e23647d8efc01c2ed8d39e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$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>
 <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org>
 <vp2cr5$1p9f5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:33:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="696718"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vp2cr5$1p9f5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6873
Lines: 104

On 2/18/25 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2025 7:48 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:37:54 -0600 schrieb 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.
>> I mean, this is a deterministic program without any static variables,
>> amirite?
>>
> 
> When I focus on one single-point:
> [D simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.

And you thus miss the point that what the partial simulation by HHH does 
is irerelvent, except to your strawman.

> 
> Since there is about a 7% chance that my very drastic cancer
> treatment will kill me in the next 100 days I must insist on
> 100% perfectly and completely addressing this point before
> moving on to any other points.

And thus the world has about  7% chance of ridding itself of a lying 
fraud soon.

You NEED to insist on using CORRECT definitions so you can redeam your 
reputation from all your lies.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
>