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 22:36:18 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 176
Message-ID: <vpm5o2$2dvrs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$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>
 <vpls0p$28j3a$3@dont-email.me>
 <65400fce8f8d4b8e4a46497dd84d9e1e40feff2d@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 05:36:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be1a41fcc27cfa869ea1b51d56f1df7a";
	logging-data="2555772"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185lWbbCPWUL1lVh9j5iCTm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:New/g4sDp4x8bYCQyz30OEDOoeg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <65400fce8f8d4b8e4a46497dd84d9e1e40feff2d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250225-8, 2/25/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 9731

On 2/25/2025 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/25/25 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, it is dead obvious that since the HHH that DD DOES ABORT (and to say 
> otherwise is just a DAMNED LIE) then the behavior of the executed DD is 
> to return.
> 

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========