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: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:22:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <872f3aae5310fe9a6d1a7256d3b8fd90a2c99a00@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <16ac79611a441e7e01119631051f69119eee958a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v06i$3pivt$1@dont-email.me>
 <23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v2t1$3pmjn$3@dont-email.me>
 <3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
 <v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me>
 <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
 <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v725d7$hlvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
 <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me>
 <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org>
 <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938153"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3484
Lines: 44

On 7/20/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>
>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>
> 
> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
> int main
> {
>    DDD();
> }
> 
> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
> 
> 




Becaue YOU are the one that is LYING.

The fact that DDD calls an HHH(DDD) That DOES ABORT its simulation of 
its copy of DDD and returns, means that DDD returns.

You don't get to play the shell game and try to change HHH to the OTHER 
program that creates ANOTHER input for DDD. Since you are claiming that 
the HHH(DDD) called by main correctly answers by returning 0, we need to 
look at THAT DDD, which calls THAT HHH and not any other.


You attemps at argument to bring in something that isn't just shows that 
your whole logic system is based on tryng to LIE, and thus isn't really 
a valid logic system. It also shows that you have no understanding about 
how programs (or logic) actually work.

Thus anyone with a bit of intelegence will see that you idea need to be 
avoided.