Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:45:13 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vpc2qp$3seot$1@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> <vpava5$3jct4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:45:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1ff04b13f652b0cfc960002dd3b20e7e";
	logging-data="4078365"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jbesxNsV8GqlTO3zD3aRe"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dnahJr5AwlsCRflci0vTvcP175Y=
Bytes: 5351

On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.

-- 
Mikko