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 --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:39:01 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vpava5$3jct4$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>
 <ee9d41d5f1c2a8dd8ff44d3ddeee20d2c3bcccc1@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
 <voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
 <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
 <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
 <e174ca1c1cbc58c67ffae3b67b69f63f21a82f86@i2pn2.org>
 <vp69r4$2mdtr$1@dont-email.me> <vp6p3f$2omp6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp7954$2rgce$1@dont-email.me> <vp9cd0$3acuq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 23:39:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aa4b2c315dd69f41fbbb67fd39ea6537";
	logging-data="3781540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/L7rLr7Ehc7q6gXfpQGYq4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:44GXv8W+J7DIFeqOXsiuPEHCL70=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250221-6, 2/21/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vp9cd0$3acuq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5402

On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
>>>>>>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
>>>>>>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
>>>>>>> Yes, please shut up.
>>>>>>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally 
>>>>>> misleading
>>>>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
>>>>> toggles termination?
>>>>
>>>> Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
>>
>> This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
> 
> It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
> we can say that the program could run forever.
> 

OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.


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