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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 22:25:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vprdr3$3gqpb$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me> <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
 <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me> <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me>
 <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me> <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn9eu$2jkdj$4@dont-email.me> <vpnehd$2kaqd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpoqs2$2vaf3$6@dont-email.me> <vppd06$323f6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpqhbe$38ma4$2@dont-email.me>
 <a32b354038871cac1af0768e09e39e3a5e14ce43@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 05:25:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="de9c75e0e594a6c6f2c98c0fd19b8497";
	logging-data="3697451"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BWvCWF5rkwXtUK2yzbIga"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rVYOqzHRkwqOc1FpDgKYcAKJgMU=
In-Reply-To: <a32b354038871cac1af0768e09e39e3a5e14ce43@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250227-10, 2/27/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5433

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the 
>>>>>>>> fact that
>>>>>>>> HHH emulates this DD.
>>>>>>> On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
>>>>>>> You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless having no influence causes itself to
>>>>>> never terminate then the one influence that
>>>>>> it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but 
>>>>> aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated 
>>>>> simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour.
>>>>
>>>> We have only been talking abort normal termination of a
>>>> C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no
>>>> idea what "normal termination" means.
>>>
>>> It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been 
>>> proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH 
>>> describes a program that terminates normally.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure of 
>>> HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described by 
>>> this finite string.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Aborting a program with halting behaviour
>>>>
>>>> We have not been talking about halting for a long
>>>> time. This term has proven to be far too vague.
>>>> Normal termination of a C function means reaching
>>>> its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness.
>>>
>>> Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its 
>>> return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more 
>>> vague.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim that 
>>>>> when you close your eyes, things do not happen.
>>>>
>>>> You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.
>>> It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your 
>>> eyes.
>>>
>>
>> When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate
>> normally it is flat out dishonest to say that I am
>> wrong based on another different DD that has different behavior.
>>
> 
> That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand 
> the meaning of the words you are using.
> 

DD emulated by HHH explicitly excludes directly executed DD
that has a different execution trace.

It has always been ridiculously stupid for anyone
to expect HHH to report on any behavior besides
the behavior that its finite string input specifies.


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