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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:11:15 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e665a0048485910b8f4ad3c7a1c56ef1d94895d3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
	<561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
	<v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
	<bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
	<XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
	<v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
	<v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
	<EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
	<P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
	<b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
	<v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:11:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2870502"; 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: 2980
Lines: 36

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science because
>>> reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere
>> science you claim to be doing.
> We never get anywhere near the computer science because people disagree
> with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
WITH WHAT

>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>> Which is NOT a program
> I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is dishonest to
> change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.
This is on topic. That function doesn't compile, since it's missing the
code of HHH.

>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> Right, and to statisfy this, since the only simulation that is
>> "Correct"
>> for the determining of the behavior of a program is a COMPLETE
>> behaivior
> 
> UNTIL MEANS LIMITED.
> IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF "COMPLETE"
> YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN INFINITE EXECUTION CANNOT BE COMPLETE.
> YOU AND OTHERS ALWAYS USE THE TERM "COMPLETE" INCORRECTLY
A complete simulation of something infinite doesn't halt, duh.

-- 
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.