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: Every HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 07:04:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ac29c0ee1ff4d18da25350ef896f8697fd626acb@i2pn2.org>
References: <bvI_P.425446$o31.351189@fx04.ams4>
 <101fkr6$1db6f$1@dont-email.me> <101hd2e$21nfj$1@dont-email.me>
 <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2025 11:21:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2951518"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101jbrq$31e9g$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2831
Lines: 58

On 6/2/25 1:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2025 6:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-31 19:21:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/31/2025 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> Olcott is doing this:
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> DDD(); // DDD calls HHH
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This is incorrect as it is a category (type) error in the form of
>>>> conflation of the EXECUTION of DDD with the SIMULATION of DDD: to
>>>> completely and correctly simulate/analyse DDD there must be no 
>>>> execution
>>>> of DDD prior to the simulation of DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Olcott should be doing this:
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> I would have left it there except that many dozens of
>>> reviewers have pointed out that they believe that HHH
>>> is supposed to report on the behavior of its caller.
>>
>> A halt decider is required to report on the computation it is asked
>> about. There is no requirement that a halt decider knows or can find
>> out whether it is called by the program about which is required to
>> report. Consequently, whether the computaton asked about calls the
>> decider is irrelevant.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
> 
> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
> 
> 

No, it specifies FINITE recursive simulation, as HHH is defined to be a 
DECIDER, that must always  return after finite time.

Your world is just filled with contradictions and lies.

The problem is your words are just meaningless, as you admit you don't 
use there actual meaning as terms-of-art.

Sorry, but you are just showing how stupid you are.