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 --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:41:07 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <866ac548c929349972234d12db21362eeedaaa89@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@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>
 <ee9d41d5f1c2a8dd8ff44d3ddeee20d2c3bcccc1@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
 <voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
 <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
 <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
 <e174ca1c1cbc58c67ffae3b67b69f63f21a82f86@i2pn2.org>
 <vp69r4$2mdtr$1@dont-email.me> <vp6p3f$2omp6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp7954$2rgce$1@dont-email.me> <vp9cd0$3acuq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpava5$3jct4$2@dont-email.me> <vpc2qp$3seot$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpcslg$irt$1@dont-email.me> <vpeqjb$eqc8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpfm6t$j7qb$3@dont-email.me> <vpharo$109qr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpiuvg$1fvqe$4@dont-email.me> <vpkkeq$21bi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vplbvf$25vp2$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 23:41:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1790321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vplbvf$25vp2$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8227
Lines: 137

On 2/25/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a truism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, please shut up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as subsequent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally misleading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that basically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toggles termination?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can 
>>>>>>>>>>>> run forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
>>>>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program 
>>>>>>>>>> itself so
>>>>>>>>>> we can say that the program could run forever.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
>>>>>>>>> Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
>>>>>>>>> function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ 
>>>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. 
>>>>>>>> If you mean
>>>>>>>> any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not talking about one statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
>>>>>> simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT 
>>>>>> TERMINATE."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ 
>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c
>>>>>> that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. 
>>>>>> If you mean
>>>>>> any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
>>>>> It really seems that you do not.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
>>>> does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
>>>
>>> HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
>>> When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
>>> one single change that it never aborts its input
>>> then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
>>> terminate normally.
>>
>> That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
>>
> 
> DD does not terminate normally either way so it
> is stupid to need to know which one.
> 

OF course DD terminates normally if HHH aborts its simulation.

It is the partial (and thus incorrect) simuolation by HHH that doesn't.

You are just so stupid you don;t understand the meaning of the words of 
the problem.