Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:05:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
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> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:05:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="59f2eddee30bf788b32be6c220c2bf66";
	logging-data="1132381"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XkAvAsUPKPxh/0AfTAd+Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8RmGm5bDEKYRIg1JVGcxa6zxS70=
In-Reply-To: <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 4750

Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not
>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some other DD
>>>>>>> somewhere else
>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows that no
>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding instance
>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider.
>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.
>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.)
>>>>
>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input that
>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we *know* that
>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your cake and eat it
>>>> too.
>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally".
>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does not imply
>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD
>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate abnormally
>> itself?
>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not need to be
>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>
> 
> 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);
> }
> 
> Every simulated input that must be aborted to
> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated
> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating.
> 
A very strange and invalid stipulation.