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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:10:29 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vp3ljl$242hm$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@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>
 <vp2cr5$1p9f5$1@dont-email.me>
 <74c89a86ded3d86026e23647d8efc01c2ed8d39e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:10:30 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b91c87ab43c39b4cb41d2bbb3acd7277";
	logging-data="2230838"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZW2MNk6urGEUprKf9klzs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ufUjsop2hoyqa5eP7kawB/oocFM=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250218-4, 2/18/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <74c89a86ded3d86026e23647d8efc01c2ed8d39e@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6780

On 2/18/2025 5:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/18/25 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> And you thus miss the point that what the partial simulation by HHH does 
> is irerelvent, except to your strawman.
> 

SAYING THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT PROVIDES ZERO EVIDENCE THAT IT IS FALSE

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