Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:20:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v75vip$19j7l$6@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> <v75b72$16i0h$1@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 16:20:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="37be9b12bf7e2996d459c5c7ef9a1f9b";
	logging-data="1363189"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++P+XdvAKodw9rH1JP50F9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7Skl76aAtEYTrkTvOuOLZ5vYyuw=
In-Reply-To: <v75b72$16i0h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3774

On 7/16/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

*Premise* (assumed to be true)
Any input that must be aborted to prevent
the non termination of HHH

*Logically entailed by the above premise*
necessarily specifies non-halting behavior or
it would never need to be aborted.

>> 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.
> 

When simulated input X stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input X has been aborted this
necessitates that input X specifies non-halting behavior.

>> I can't see how you were simply not flat out dishonest.

> 
> That you cannot do something without being dishoest does not prevent us.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer