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: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:41:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f7e1f2c4a10774be2c22f1c68f9c7bbae2e4bfae@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:41:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3576926"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3976
Lines: 84

On 2/10/25 6:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-09 15:24:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 2/9/2025 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-08 14:55:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/8/2025 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-07 23:13:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>> "if" statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, they understand that nothing below exludes the possibility 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> HHH is a program that can correctly simulate DD to its "if" 
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show the execution trace of that.
>>>>
>>>> Your request does not make sense. Non-existence of a exclusion does not
>>>> have an execution trace.
>>>>
>>>>>> The code of HHH might exlude that but that is not sohwn below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive
>>>>>>> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. DD as quoted below pecifies nothing about the 
>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>> of HHH, only its argument types and return type.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  >>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); // line 3 of DD
>>>>> Requires HHH to simulate itself simulating DD recursively.
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not. I only requires that the execution of HHH with a 
>>>> function
>>>> pointer to DD must be started. OP does not show what happens next.
>>>
>>> Within the context that HHH <is> a simulating termination
>>> analyzer line 3 of DD proves that DD cannot possibly reach
>>> its own "if" statement.
>>
>> That is not the context of OP.
>>
> 
> That you did not bother to look at my paper does not entail
> that the correct full context has not been provided. The
> context has always been this paper for several years.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
> 
> 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);
> }
> 
> 

And that paper just proves that you don't understand what you are 
talking about.

Your START with an error in your first paragraph, as the function DD is 
NOT a "Program" suitable to be analyzied for halting until you include 
the function HHH (and everything it calls) as the input.

Once you do that, the rest of the paper is invalid, as it is based on 
the concept that HHH is a variable that you can look at all values of.

Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be an ignorant FRAUD that uses 
lies and deceit to make your claims.