Path: 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:34:21 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <vpfm6t$j7qb$3@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$1@dont-email.me> <vpeqjb$eqc8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:34:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5144976fea626f7db2c2a543d9b04706";
	logging-data="630603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4Kv+wkreqpRFHQPrUjzT3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JjERy5o1a60IVbILFdjuH0+xGjE=
In-Reply-To: <vpeqjb$eqc8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250223-4, 2/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.

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