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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:44:25 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@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>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:44:26 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5144976fea626f7db2c2a543d9b04706";
	logging-data="630603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fPxbwzvpnx2Ly7sWbL5oW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GjcO9vyOntbArLk8uWkbkV0SGsk=
In-Reply-To: <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250223-4, 2/23/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 9789

On 2/23/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-02-22 16:11:31 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 2/22/2025 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-21 22:35:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/21/2025 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-20 21:31:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/19/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-18 11:26:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those two comments are not discussed below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot 
>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That cannot be determined without examination of HHH, which is 
>>>>>>>>> not in the
>>>>>>>>> scope of OP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source
>>>>>>>> code for a few years
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that 
>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>> code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or
>>>>>> more years has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>
>>>>> OP had a pointer of that code but didn's state that that code is a 
>>>>> part
>>>>> of the problem. OP did not spacify any range for variation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have only been talking about variations of the same code
>>>> as HHH(DD) for two years. Do you understand that one sentence?
>>>
>>> I understnd the sentence except the word "variations". What is the
>>> range of "variations"?
>>>
>>
>> Good you are being completely reasonable.
>> There are at least two algorithms the current
>> one that was also the original one is easiest to
>> understand. This algorithm essentially spots the
>> equivalent of infinite recursion. The code provides
>> all of the details.
>>
>>> Anyway OP did not specify that HHH is restricted to those "variations".
>>> Another undefined word of OP is "cannot". About a person it may mean
>>> that one does not do what one wants to do but a program does not want.
>>>
>>
>> HHH is exactly as specified. Assuming otherwise is silly.
> 
> The words "as specified" when nothing is specified are not a good use
> of the language.
> 

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========