| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v75b72$16i0h$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 11:32:34 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v75b72$16i0h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me> <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me> <v72m95$kbi2$1@dont-email.me> <v7381u$mjis$13@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:32:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99a13b02fce255176e717749a711055d";
logging-data="1263633"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fPNnfrJP0wrMjFZDXj1Va"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AaZpoxid/gb0fKmdr+cN6oOYOuk=
Bytes: 2990
On 2024-07-15 13:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
> On 7/15/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-14 14:38:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if HHH(DDD) does,
>>>
>>>
>>> *You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
>>> *comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
>>> termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>
>>> Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
>>> with arithmetic.
>>
>> That the input is aborted does not mean that the input must be aborted.
>
> Weasel words. This is an axiom:
> Input XXX must be aborted to prevent the non-termination of HHH.
That is not an acceptable axiom. That you are unable to prove that
either XXX is aborted or HHH does not terminate is insufficient
reason to call it an axiom.
> From the fact that XXX must be aborted we can conclude that XXX must be
> aborted.
Nothing that contains the word "must" is a fact.
> I can't see how you were simply not flat out dishonest.
That you cannot do something without being dishoest does not prevent us.
--
Mikko