Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:42:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <v9nhfe$1dvef$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me> <v9hp66$ck4s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ia4j$f16v$1@dont-email.me> <v9kkso$u2rh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9l6kj$10ae5$4@dont-email.me> <v9n430$1clc0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:42:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1506767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+PulKIv1F6J/Js+2LaIbM7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FITSuwSqy3VyGV6RfmbBg7A6jxc=
In-Reply-To: <v9n430$1clc0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3033

On 8/16/2024 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-15 15:25:07 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/15/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-14 13:06:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/14/2024 3:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-14 00:52:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to prove that the above specifies a non-halting behavour
>>>>> you must prove that HHH(DDD) does not terminate.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> At least the proof that DDD does not terminate also proves as an
>>> intermedate result or an obvious corollary that HHH does not halt.
>>>
>>> Non-halting means that an infinite number of instructions can be
>>> executed without halting. That means that at least one instruction
>>> is executed infinitely many times as there are only finitely many
>>> instructions. But not instrunctions of DDD outside HHH is executed
>>> infinitely many times.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. Non-halting only means that when DDD is emulated
>> according to the semantics of the x86 language and this
>> emulation is unlimited that DDD would never reach its
>> own "return" instruction.
> 
> If what I said is wrong then what you said is wrong, too,
> as you say what I said.
> 

*You are getting the computer science incorrectly*

On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
 > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
 >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
 >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...

 > ...these and many other definitions all have
 >    equivalent computing prowess...

The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.

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