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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:41:13 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c0f30c3190ab62801ac2b882a853fc3b0d7acaf1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$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> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vore4m$9ddo$1@dont-email.me> <vpkq6t$22eec$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpl0h8$23vks$4@dont-email.me>
 <a7933046f50046a343ddf27baea995bafb80da4a@i2pn2.org>
 <vpl1vj$23vks$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 23:41:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1790321"; 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: <vpl1vj$23vks$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3291
Lines: 53

On 2/25/25 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2025 12:07 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 12:01:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
>>>> proof or pointer to proof below.
>>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
> 
>> This depends entirely on HHH not aborting *in every invocation*.
>>
> 
> Whether HHH aborts or never aborts DD simulated by
> HHH never terminates normally.

No, becuawe "DD" is the program as it behaves when run or correctly 
simulated.

If HHH aborts, then if gave up the ability to define the behavior of DD, 
and thus we need to look at the ACTUAL behavior.

> 
> Some of my reviewers have said that they have ADD thus
> have great difficulty paying attention to ALL MY WORDS.
> 
> Anyone that pays COMPLETE ATTENTON TO ALL OF THE ABOVE WORDS
> and has sufficient technical skill understands that I
> am correct. Most of the recent rebuttals have ignored
> some of my words.

Maybe you need to pay attention to the actual problem, and the errors 
you make that have been pointed out, as opposed to continuely prove your 
stupidity by working on a strawman, and lying about what actually happens.

> 
>>> Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
> 
>