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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:52:06 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dd1b0c9910f7e5b7ea0b0c67b38559929af3ba28@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 21:52:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="370347"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4933
Lines: 89

On 2/16/25 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that
>>>>>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I
>>>>>>> will point out the error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Step 1: Find people who know C.
>>>>>> Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the only topic that I will discuss and any
>>>>>
>>>>> 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);
>>>>> }
>>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Technically a decider is any TM that always stops running.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine)
> 
> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.
> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input
> that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
> 
> 


Right, but the answer given by the decider must match the problem.

The Halting Problem, and the Terminataiton Analyzer problem both deal 
with the behavior of the program described when it is just run.

It is NOT about if the "decider" can simulate it to a final state.

Thus, your whole argument has run into the problem of you using a 
strawman of the wrong question.

Sorry, that just breaks all you conclusions.