Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:00:31 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a32b354038871cac1af0768e09e39e3a5e14ce43@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me> <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
 <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me> <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me>
 <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me> <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn9eu$2jkdj$4@dont-email.me> <vpnehd$2kaqd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpoqs2$2vaf3$6@dont-email.me> <vppd06$323f6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpqhbe$38ma4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2112681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vpqhbe$38ma4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4740
Lines: 76

On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> HHH emulates this DD.
>>>>>> On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
>>>>>> You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless having no influence causes itself to
>>>>> never terminate then the one influence that
>>>>> it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but 
>>>> aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated 
>>>> simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour.
>>>
>>> We have only been talking abort normal termination of a
>>> C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no
>>> idea what "normal termination" means.
>>
>> It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been 
>> proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH 
>> describes a program that terminates normally.
> 
> 
> 
>> That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure of 
>> HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described by 
>> this finite string.
>>
>>>
>>>> Aborting a program with halting behaviour
>>>
>>> We have not been talking about halting for a long
>>> time. This term has proven to be far too vague.
>>> Normal termination of a C function means reaching
>>> its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness.
>>
>> Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its 
>> return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more 
>> vague.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim that 
>>>> when you close your eyes, things do not happen.
>>>
>>> You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.
>>>
>>
>> Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.
>> It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your 
>> eyes.
>>
> 
> When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate
> normally it is flat out dishonest to say that I am
> wrong based on another different DD that has different behavior.
> 

That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand 
the meaning of the words you are using.

You are just proving your stupidity.