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 --- very stupid
 requirement
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:00:22 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d09815c54830dbcf925983587912587b9f2201f6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$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>
 <456fe60036f85dd602289d0790b9c4768aa531b1@i2pn2.org>
 <vpoq0n$2vaf3$3@dont-email.me>
 <e43723a13b3c6e7073f433e21c2aad628cb95d16@i2pn2.org>
 <vpq06m$35jvb$2@dont-email.me>
 <d19ef2d90813661c47388878231a704c7d169608@i2pn2.org>
 <vpqhnf$38ma4$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2112681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpqhnf$38ma4$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4553
Lines: 59

On 2/27/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb 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.
>>>>>> No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls
>>>>>> that simulator.
>>>>> In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to
>>>>> get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.
>>>
>>>> I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
>>>> recursion.
>>> Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
>>> must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
>> I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.
>>
> 
> When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
> correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
> of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
> always correct to reject this input finite string as
> specifying non terminating behavior.
> 
> This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.
> 
> 

But it must determine that correctly.

It can't make that determination based on the assumption of the input 
calling a different verison of itself.

THAT is the Tautology, which proves your HHH to be incorrecgt.

If HHH makes that determination, that determination needs to still be 
valid if the HHH that DD calls aborts and returns 0,

Since it isn't, your analyzer did not correctly determine the behavior,

Note, PROGRAMS, the domain of the discussion, include *ALL* the code 
they use, and thus DD includes the code of the HHH that you are claiming 
made the correct answer, not that other imaginary version that didn't.

Your Truth Fairy can't change that fact, only make you think so and 
prove your stupidity.