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: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 13:47:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <vpl37p$24nse$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vpgk2q$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> <vpj94u$1hivf$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpj99o$1gok4$6@dont-email.me> <vpjeov$1nj05$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpjf69$1gok4$7@dont-email.me> <vpjfe3$1nnh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpjfut$1gok4$9@dont-email.me> <vpkkq3$214n8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpklmo$20gtl$1@dont-email.me> <vpkvhu$23vks$2@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 19:47:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9eeafc121d03898926ad9caf9449da30";
	logging-data="2252686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180Sj3csCc4MMUrxmrauwKF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ARlA041eUL2Y+23g5BW7NxBUNXo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpkvhu$23vks$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7614

On 2/25/2025 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2025 8:56 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:15 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 already corrected you on this misunderstanding.
>>>>>>>>> HHH has two versions the real one and the imaginary
>>>>>>>>> on that never aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that 
>>>>>>>> never aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You already said that F halts after ten invocations
>>>>>>> and and that F does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changing the subject to the direct execution of 
>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman 
>>>>>> deception.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The subject is the correct simulation of 
>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 by F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Show me all of the code with the > 10
>>>>> conditional branch and line numbers and
>>>>> a line number by line number execution
>>>>> trace or I will write you off as playing head games.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual code of F doesn't matter, as your criteria requires 
>>>> replacing all of the code of F with an unconditional simulator.
>>>>
>>>> So according to you, the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10 
>>>> simulated by F is defined by the following hypothetical code.
>>>>
>>>> 1  int F(uintptr_t p)
>>>> 2  {
>>>> 3    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
>>> Too vague
>>> i > 10 is missing
>>
>> Not at all.  F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that 
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as 
>> measured by your criteria of replacing all code of F with an 
>> unconditional simulator.
>>
>>
> 
> I AM NEVER RELPLACING ALL THE CODE STF ABOUT THAT
> 
> 

A change is a change.

You say that HHH(DD) determines what happens in the hypothetical case 
that the code of HHH does an unaborted simulation and HHH(DD) is executed.

Likewise, F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) determines what happens in the 
hypothetical case that the code of F does an unaborted simulation and 
F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) is executed.

So according to your criteria, no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies 
non-halting behavior to F.

>>>> 4  }
>>>> 5
>>>> 6  int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>> 7  {
>>>> 8     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>> 9  }
>>>> 10
>>>> 11 int main()
>>>> 12 {
>>>> 13    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>> 14    return 0;
>>>> 15 }
>>>>
>>>> The trace of this is 13, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code), 
>>>> 8, 3 (simulator code), ...
>>>>
>>>> So clearly no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior 
>>>> to F, as per your criteria
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>