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 19:50:16 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <vpls0p$28j3a$3@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>
 <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> <vpkkeq$21bi5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vplbvf$25vp2$7@dont-email.me>
 <866ac548c929349972234d12db21362eeedaaa89@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 02:50:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ac6d3b444f758916573bdf6c20a8a1c1";
	logging-data="2378858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+s1kT4f1/JAe1Z5R14E5oW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1hwko4sl78kuB4hJOVSnjf3OPYc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <866ac548c929349972234d12db21362eeedaaa89@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250225-8, 2/25/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 8986

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/25/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
>>>
>>
>> DD does not terminate normally either way so it
>> is stupid to need to know which one.
>>
> 
> OF course DD terminates normally if HHH aborts its simulation.
> 

Only if you are clueless about both c and x86, otherwise
it is dead obvious that the entire recursive chain totally
stops and zero elements of the recursive chain can possibly
reach their "ret" or "return" instruction as soon as the
outermost instance is aborted.

Since this is ordinary software engineering and requires zero
knowledge of computer science that proves that anyone disagreeing
is simply clueless.

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