Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:18:11 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vosoij$jvi4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me>
 <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me> <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me>
 <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me> <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
 <vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
 <voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
 <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me>
 <2dd4a1bd3eb9d1a15bcf362551f52b4343fabd60@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:18:12 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c928bd9eb52e5cb5acf316a3ad4e5e6d";
	logging-data="654916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cqHpiQZbU8hfAOtpaRrF7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:027yXacLnanne1mslQNo9gtdIK4=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-0, 2/15/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <2dd4a1bd3eb9d1a15bcf362551f52b4343fabd60@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7017

On 2/16/2025 6:50 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 13:21:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon
> 
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next
>>>>>>>>>>>> month will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I
>>>>>>>>>>>> will totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it
>>>>>>>>> cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort
>>>>>>>>> the correct simulation before it sees that the correct simulation
>>>>>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition.
>>>>>>>> it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot
>>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a
>>>>>>> 2 years old child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it
>>>>>> specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
>>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate
>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are no
>>>>> substitute for reasoning.
>>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does
>>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program
>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>
>>>> It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
>>>> (a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation after itself is no longer
>>>> being simulated.
>>>>
>>>> (b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation of none of them do.
>>> Which does not change the fact that simulating HHH does not see that
>>> the simulated HHH would also abort,
>>
>> The simulated HHH cannot possibly abort because it can't possibly get to
>> the point where it sees that it needs to abort because it is aborted
>> before it gets to this point.

> Yes, but why does it need to be stopped before it halts?
I had to rewrite this reply five times because Thunderbird
kept screwing up. I forgot my original words.

No DD simulated by any corresponding HHH can possibly ever terminate 
normally if you disagree that only proves that you don't know C well 
enough.

> 
>> Unless the outermost HHH aborts before any inner HHH sees that it needs
>> to abort no HHH ever aborts.
> True. No HHH should ever abort.
> 



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