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 --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:02:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e011c94f5cff826e1687ab577f93602fa2d35fdd@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>
 <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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 00:02:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1324222"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vpcslg$irt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6569
Lines: 106

On 2/22/25 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
>>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, please shut up.
>>>>>>>>>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as 
>>>>>>>>> subsequent
>>>>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second 
>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally 
>>>>>>>>> misleading
>>>>>>>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates 
>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that 
>>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>>> toggles termination?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 referring to
> all of the code and all of code this this code refers to
> in every other file.
> 
> If you want to refer to one statement every software engineer
> knows this means FILENAME : LINE NUMBER.
> 

ANd thus HHH has fixed defined behavior, and talking about it behaving 
differently is just a LIE.

You don't get to change your fixed parameters, and HHH can't be a 
variable and still have DD be a valid input, as the input string must be 
a constant.

Your failure to understand this just shows your total ignorance of the 
topic, and your refusal to learn shows your stupidity.