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 18:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <db0fa13ead488b3deb363dfcc78c5129c745ed77@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgk2q$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>
	<vpj99o$1gok4$6@dont-email.me> <vpjeov$1nj05$2@dont-email.me>
	<vpjf69$1gok4$7@dont-email.me> <vpjfe3$1nnh0$1@dont-email.me>
	<vpjfut$1gok4$9@dont-email.me> <vpkkq3$214n8$3@dont-email.me>
	<vpklmo$20gtl$1@dont-email.me> <vpkvhu$23vks$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:10:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1752334"; 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: 6834
Lines: 112

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:44:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/25/2025 8:56 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that
>>>>>>>> never aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already said that F halts after ten invocations and and that F
>>>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing the subject to the direct execution of
>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman
>>>>>> deception.
>>>>>> The subject is the correct simulation of no_numbers_greater_than_10
>>>>>> by F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me all of the code with the > 10 conditional branch and line
>>>>> numbers and a line number by line number execution trace or I will
>>>>> write you off as playing head games.
>>>>>
>>>> The actual code of F doesn't matter, as your criteria requires
>>>> replacing all of the code of F with an unconditional simulator.
>>>>
>>>> So according to you, the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10
>>>> simulated by F is defined by the following hypothetical code.
>>>> 1  int F(uintptr_t p)
>>>> 2  {
>>>> 3    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
>>> Too vague i > 10 is missing
>> 
>> Not at all.  F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as
>> measured by your criteria of replacing all code of F with an
>> unconditional simulator.
> I AM NEVER RELPLACING ALL THE CODE STF ABOUT THAT
Yes you are turning off the abort check in line 1052 IIRC.

>>>> 4  }
>>>> 5
>>>> 6  int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>> 7  {
>>>> 8     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>> 9  }
>>>> 10 11 int main()
>>>> 12 {
>>>> 13    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>> 14    return 0;
>>>> 15 }
>>>>
>>>> The trace of this is 13, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code),
>>>> 8, 3 (simulator code), ...
>>>> So clearly no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior
>>>> to F, as per your criteria
-- 
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.