Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
 --- Saving Democracy
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:15:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a923b712d62d8d24038eafb512f8d4cf0e480154@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vpdqc8$6bqs$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpe1g3$7gnd$1@dont-email.me> <vpflv1$j7qb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpfnhm$jena$1@dont-email.me> <vpgded$nkbd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpgdn8$nlei$1@dont-email.me> <vpgh33$o4p7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpghkq$o82o$1@dont-email.me> <vpgk2q$okhu$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpgo94$p8he$1@dont-email.me> <vpgoia$p9vl$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpgrdl$tdkf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgtb3$tiun$2@dont-email.me>
	<vpgth7$tdkf$3@dont-email.me> <vpgufr$truc$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpguru$tdkf$4@dont-email.me> <vpgvcv$tuuf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vphr67$13hrc$1@dont-email.me> <vpi0rc$14kaj$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpi1ni$13hrc$3@dont-email.me> <vpio66$1euhp$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpipdj$1f8pm$1@dont-email.me> <vpiujl$1fvqe$2@dont-email.me>
	<vpj1if$1gok4$1@dont-email.me> <vpj5dg$1hb0e$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpj683$1gok4$3@dont-email.me> <vpj7ep$1hivf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpj7mh$1gok4$4@dont-email.me> <vpj862$1hivf$2@dont-email.me>
	<vpj8fo$1gok4$5@dont-email.me> <vpj94u$1hivf$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:15:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1683213"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4152
Lines: 56

Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 20:15:57 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely hypothetical
>>>>>>>>> (imaginary never implemented) HHH that never aborts its
>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by
>>>>>>>> breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F that
>>>>>>>> performs a correct unaborted simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never terminate
>>>>>>> conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior that cannot
>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never terminate
>>>>>> conclusively proves that no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies
>>>>>> behavior that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not discuss your code.
>>>>>
>>>> I'll let you respond to yourself here:
>>>> On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>  > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain all
>>>>  > of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that because I
>>>>  > am correct.
>>>>
>>> Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an irrelevant change of
>>> subject away from the point.
>>>
>> That is counter-factual.
>> According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH is
>> defined by this code:
>> 
>> int HHH(ptr P)
>> {
>>      /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
>> }
>> 
> I already corrected you on this misunderstanding. HHH has two versions
> the real one and the imaginary on that never aborts the simulation of
> its input.
Why are you talking about a hypothetical non-input?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.