Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:39:36 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <97d84fbf786aef50161f75a10303d4f940f65ad6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
 <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
 <vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
 <voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
 <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd4a1bd3eb9d1a15bcf362551f52b4343fabd60@i2pn2.org>
 <vosoij$jvi4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:39:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="349295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vosoij$jvi4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7569
Lines: 118

On 2/16/25 8:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2025 6:50 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:21:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> month will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it
>>>>>>>>>> cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort
>>>>>>>>>> the correct simulation before it sees that the correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition.
>>>>>>>>> it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot
>>>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a
>>>>>>>> 2 years old child.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it
>>>>>>> specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate
>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are no
>>>>>> substitute for reasoning.
>>>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does
>>>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program
>>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
>>>>> (a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation after itself is no longer
>>>>> being simulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation of none of them do.
>>>> Which does not change the fact that simulating HHH does not see that
>>>> the simulated HHH would also abort,
>>>
>>> The simulated HHH cannot possibly abort because it can't possibly get to
>>> the point where it sees that it needs to abort because it is aborted
>>> before it gets to this point.
> 
>> Yes, but why does it need to be stopped before it halts?
> I had to rewrite this reply five times because Thunderbird
> kept screwing up. I forgot my original words.
> 
> No DD simulated by any corresponding HHH can possibly ever terminate 
> normally if you disagree that only proves that you don't know C well 
> enough.

So?

We aren't looking at templates, we are looking at programs.

Any DD that calls an HHH that aborts its simulation of DD, and returns 
0, creates a PROGRAM that Halts, since it does so when correctly run or 
simulated.

The fact that its HHH aborted its simulation based on invalid logic, 
doesn't make its answer "correct", it makes the logic incorrect and the 
answer wrong.

Of course, since you just don't understand the fundamental nature of 
Truth, you don't care that you are working from your own lies, you think 
anything you say must be correct, but that is just you lying to yourself.

Of course, you know what happens to liars, so you can't afford to look 
closely at your own words, or you would know your fate.

> 
>>
>>> Unless the outermost HHH aborts before any inner HHH sees that it needs
>>> to abort no HHH ever aborts.
>> True. No HHH should ever abort.
>>
> 
> 
>