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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 21:24:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7fb3d55ad5f57d771a8443370335431e5d7aac7c@i2pn2.org>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me>
 <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org>
 <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1b0f211d64311dca26f3c00cf5fda41bf6ad938b@i2pn2.org>
 <102pnvr$1q95t$1@dont-email.me>
 <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org>
 <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 01:34:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="959606"; 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: <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/16/25 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/16/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2025 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination
>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it seems you don't understand that the problem is that while, 
>>>>>> yes, if HHH does infact do a correct simulation, it will not reach 
>>>>>> a final state, that fact only applie *IF* HHH does that, and all 
>>>>>> the other HHHs which differ see different inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I should have said*
>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>>> then DDD never reaches its simulated "return" statement
>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> Since that isn't the criteria that the decider is supposed to answer 
>>>> by, it is just a strawman.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *You merely dishonestly changed the subject*
>>
>> No I didn't, the subject is about "Halting"
>>
>> Halting is defined for PROGRAMS
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show
>>> exactly how the below (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this
>>> challenge and change the subject.
>>>
>>>    (a) One of more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>    simulated by some simulating termination analyzer HHH.
>>>
>>>    (b) None of the above simulated DDD instances ever
>>>    reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>
>> Since that isn't the definition of Halting/Non-Halting, it is just a 
>> strawman.
>>
>> Non-Halting isn't just that a partial simulation doesn't reach a final 
>> state, and that is what your (a) describes, as to be NOT partial, it 
>> must simulate *ALL* the instructions.
>>
>> The fuller definition of non-halting is that a machine is non-halting 
>> if it will not reach a final state performing an UNBOUNDED number of 
>> steps.
>>
> 
> In other words you do not understand what every CS graduate
> would understand: That once a non-halting behavior pattern
> is correctly matched in a finite number of steps that this
> conclusively proves non-halting.
> 

But you didn't match an actual non-halting pattern, as shown by the fact 
that this pattern is seen inside the trace of a program you admit halts 
when run.

How can you see a non-halting pattern in the trace of a halting program.

All that shows is that you think it is ok to lie.