Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:09:52 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d5e3ebdbfe8ed9bcaeb27c9f97b524b046fcfd9c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$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>
	<ee9d41d5f1c2a8dd8ff44d3ddeee20d2c3bcccc1@i2pn2.org>
	<vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
	<f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
	<voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
	<855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
	<vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
	<e174ca1c1cbc58c67ffae3b67b69f63f21a82f86@i2pn2.org>
	<vp69r4$2mdtr$1@dont-email.me> <vp6p3f$2omp6$1@dont-email.me>
	<vp7954$2rgce$1@dont-email.me> <vp9cd0$3acuq$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpava5$3jct4$2@dont-email.me> <vpc2qp$3seot$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpcslg$irt$1@dont-email.me> <vpeqjb$eqc8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpfm6t$j7qb$3@dont-email.me> <vpharo$109qr$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpiuvg$1fvqe$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 08:09:52 -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: 5217
Lines: 70

Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:22:23 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>>>>>>> Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run
>>>>>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
>>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program
>>>>>>>> itself so we can say that the program could run forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless the
>>>>>>> C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD this DD
>>>>>>> C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is
>>>>>> simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then
>>>>>> that statement is false.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about one statement.
>>>>
>>>> I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
>>>> simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT
>>>> TERMINATE."
>>>>
>>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
>>>> master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is
>>>> simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then
>>>> that statement is false.
>>>
>>> Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
>>> It really seems that you do not.
>> 
>> Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
>> does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
>> 
> HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
> When we imagine the exact same HHH with the one single change that it
> never aborts its input then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
> terminate normally.
LOLOLOL that is not "the exact same HHH"

-- 
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.