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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:51:42 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <vpkvve$23vks$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@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$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpfm6t$j7qb$3@dont-email.me> <vpharo$109qr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpiuvg$1fvqe$4@dont-email.me>
 <d5e3ebdbfe8ed9bcaeb27c9f97b524b046fcfd9c@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:51:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae4d22a2babce2da2b4f9e10d47b5d58";
	logging-data="2227868"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19sm2a21q/4R0+1fgtxQH6o"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4FFsyQnsifc27ihezfxp6j0LqsI=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <d5e3ebdbfe8ed9bcaeb27c9f97b524b046fcfd9c@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250225-8, 2/25/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5677

On 2/25/2025 2:09 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:22:23 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 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:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
>>> does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
>>>
>> HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
>> When we imagine the exact same HHH with the one single change that it
>> never aborts its input then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
>> terminate normally.
> LOLOLOL that is not "the exact same HHH"
> 

DAMNED WEASEL WORDS
X WITH X == X WITH Y
A REBUTTAL OF THIS SAYING X WITH Y != X WITHOUT Y IS MERE DECEPTION.

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