Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
 --- Saving Democracy
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:59:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vpjf72$1gok4$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vpdqc8$6bqs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpe1g3$7gnd$1@dont-email.me> <vpflv1$j7qb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpfnhm$jena$1@dont-email.me> <vpgded$nkbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgdn8$nlei$1@dont-email.me> <vpgh33$o4p7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpghkq$o82o$1@dont-email.me> <vpgk2q$okhu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgo94$p8he$1@dont-email.me> <vpgoia$p9vl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgrdl$tdkf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgtb3$tiun$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpgth7$tdkf$3@dont-email.me> <vpgufr$truc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpguru$tdkf$4@dont-email.me> <vpgvcv$tuuf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vphr67$13hrc$1@dont-email.me> <vpi0rc$14kaj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpi1ni$13hrc$3@dont-email.me> <vpio66$1euhp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpipdj$1f8pm$1@dont-email.me> <vpiujl$1fvqe$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpj1if$1gok4$1@dont-email.me> <vpj5dg$1hb0e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpj683$1gok4$3@dont-email.me> <vpj7ep$1hivf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpj7mh$1gok4$4@dont-email.me> <vpj862$1hivf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpj8fo$1gok4$5@dont-email.me> <vpjeit$1nj05$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 04:59:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9eeafc121d03898926ad9caf9449da30";
	logging-data="1598084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Xka19AWEjkyZIrFoER/KM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Iz+T9voR9O/33MCVUIcEy7uQ3mI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpjeit$1nj05$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4584

On 2/24/2025 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely
>>>>>>>>> hypothetical (imaginary never implemented)
>>>>>>>>> HHH that never aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by 
>>>>>>>> breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F that 
>>>>>>>> performs a correct unaborted simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never
>>>>>>> terminate conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior
>>>>>>> that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never terminate 
>>>>>> conclusively proves that no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies 
>>>>>> behavior that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not discuss your code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll let you respond to yourself here:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>  > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain
>>>>  > all of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that
>>>>  > because I am correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an
>>> irrelevant change of subject away from the point.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That is counter-factual.
>>
>> According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH is 
>> defined by this code:
>>
>> int HHH(ptr P)
>> {
>>      /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
>> }
>>
> 
> I NEVER MEANT THAT
> 

It sure sounds like you did:

On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
 >>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return"
 >>> instruction.
 >>
 >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional 
simulator then it can be shown that DD is non-halting and therefore 
HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
 >>
 >
 > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.