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: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 19:00:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hept$3o0be$1@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 23:00:46 -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: <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4626
Lines: 96

On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt 
>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either aborts the
>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must 
>>>>>>>>> abort
>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>>>> You missed a couple details:
>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
>>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
>>>> simulator halt on their own.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts 
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will 
>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>>>> Pretty much.
>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
>>>>>> need to.
>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist 
>>>>> aborts
>>>>> its simulation.
>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
> 
> You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:

Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard the 
teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not just honest 
mistakes but reckless pathological lies.

> 
>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, 
> 
>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it to be 
>> a decider) then the behavior of DDD 
> 
> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.

Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, so 
can not "Kill" it.

The "Behavior" of the input is what happens when it is completely run or 
simulated, INCLUDED all of the code of HHH that it uses.

You are just showing your utter ignorant stupidity about what you are 
talking about.

> 
>> call HHH(DDD), for that HHH to 
> 
> Why condemn yourself to Hell over this?

I'm not, but you might be.

Lying about the meaning of the terms is just lying. Even if you don't 
understand them, they have been explained to you enough that your 
ignoring them make your statement a reckless disregard for the truth, 
which is part of lying.

> 
>> partially emulate DDD, and (after the point in that DDD that it 
>> emulated) abort that emulation and return and thus DDD will return.
> 
> 
>