Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 11:45:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 40 Message-ID: <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me> <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 18:45:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f61d708f7255d8f8083a5c4caa64fa66"; logging-data="2886114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1SRDIXcz2Y0MN9U0XjCMe" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7s0c3LFq1zE/dmfCcYKQ3e0fvh0= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250405-6, 4/5/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 4/5/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-04-05 06:18:06 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 4/4/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-04-04 01:27:15 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>> HHH(DDD); >>>> return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Do you really think that anyone knowing the C >>>> programming language is too stupid to see that >>>> DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return? >>> >>> Anyone knowing the C language can see that if DDD() does not halt >>> it means that HHH(DDD) does not halt. The knowledge that that >>> means that HHH is not a decider is possible but not required. >>> >> >> *Perpetually ignoring this is not any actual rebuttal at all* >> >> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle* >> It is always correct for any simulating termination >> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that >> would otherwise prevent its own termination. The >> only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that >> deciders must always halt. > > Wrong, because a termination analyzer is not required to halt. > Why say things that you know are untrue? A termination analyzer that doesn't halt would flunk every proof of total program correctness. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer