Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:26:25 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@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> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:26:26 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="280ee16606544209f6d2cff2cf76adf3";
	logging-data="1769649"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0pQOqDWVm9lWntcNXFyyK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4GIGRT5AXZhEMLdHJUbbf5MbMM8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250218-0, 2/17/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5671

On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary meaning.
> 

Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly 
terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language
can see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop
after the "if" statement.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer