Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:02:37 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a2dfe0efc379d40c561c721192700de632a8ee0d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me>
 <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me> <voahc5$m3dj$8@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa1bdbc6b9a62ac6b0f4ebe6d467a1d30a3d8325@i2pn2.org>
 <vpd45a$irt$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 00:02:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1324222"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpd45a$irt$12@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3999
Lines: 44

On 2/22/25 1:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2025 10:49 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:06:08 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> The statement "unless HHH aborts..." is void, because HH does abort.
>>
> 
> EVERYTHING ELSE IS 100% IRRELEVANT UNTIL WE HAVE
> MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON THIS POINT
> 
> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally
> by reaching its own “return” instruction.
> 
> 

You can't try to imagine what happens if something you defined to work 
one way would work another.

That is just saying that you think LIES are acceptable, which just 
proves that you are just a pathological liar.