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