Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:03:23 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <db2fd29b4d978ec17b4fdf95e8a39ef237caa6b6@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$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$1@dont-email.me> <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me>
 <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org>
 <vp2cr5$1p9f5$1@dont-email.me>
 <74c89a86ded3d86026e23647d8efc01c2ed8d39e@i2pn2.org>
 <vp3ljl$242hm$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:03:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="773324"; 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: <vp3ljl$242hm$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6889
Lines: 105

On 2/18/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/18/2025 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/18/25 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2025 7:48 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:37:54 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not trying to get away with changing the subject to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other DD somewhere else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no instance of DD shown above simulated by any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance of HHH can possibly terminate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know* that it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your cake and eat it too.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally".
>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does not
>>>>>>>>>>> imply an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate
>>>>>>>>>>> DD terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate
>>>>>>>>>>> abnormally itself?
>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not 
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> be aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to prevent the
>>>>>>>>>> non-termination of HHH is stipulated to be correctly rejected by
>>>>>>>>>> HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly
>>>>>>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language 
>>>>>>> can see
>>>>>>> this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop after the
>>>>>>> "if" statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of 
>>>>>> itself it
>>>>>> sees called does that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>> I mean, this is a deterministic program without any static variables,
>>>> amirite?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>> [D simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>
>> And you thus miss the point that what the partial simulation by HHH 
>> does is irerelvent, except to your strawman.
>>
> 
> SAYING THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT PROVIDES ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS FALSE
> 

So you admit to using the logic of a strawman!

Since it *IS* irrelevent, its truth value doesn't affect the truth value 
of the proposition.

All you are doing is admitting that you whole work is nothing but a 
FRAUD based on strawmen and lies.