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 20:08:41 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e91d1dee61da862f67c1342fecad9acca13ca728@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 01:08:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="390016"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4105
Lines: 59

On 2/16/25 4:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
> 


Since DD isn't correctly simulated by the HHH that you say is HHH, you 
are just shown to be a liar.n