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: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:43:07 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <vpeqjb$eqc8$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> <vpc2qp$3seot$1@dont-email.me> <vpcslg$irt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 10:43:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7442d786ccbb8ebc38a8eb6bee9b1fa8";
	logging-data="485768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/j8jLC5rlMdXsBExCmm8sj"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BFgqmUTII8E3Gdmyo39s7+5OAvM=
Bytes: 6051

On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I am not talking about one statement.

I am, about one you made: "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