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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:34:45 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vp2cr5$1p9f5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$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> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me>
 <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:34:46 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5aaf7caa069ced84c882718c80899ee5";
	logging-data="1877477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+gcVCuZNzaZJ+SjlmDehOv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1N18Z/S5NYF+X99OIbo5T7TgTHc=
In-Reply-To: <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250218-2, 2/18/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 6702

On 2/18/2025 7:48 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:37:54 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of itself it
>>> sees called does that.
>>>
>> Not at all.
> I mean, this is a deterministic program without any static variables,
> amirite?
> 

When I focus on one single-point:
[D simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.

Since there is about a 7% chance that my very drastic cancer
treatment will kill me in the next 100 days I must insist on
100% perfectly and completely addressing this point before
moving on to any other points.

>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH that sees
>> the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation none of them do
>> because they all have the exact same code.


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