Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 --- STA
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 12:56:13 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vstj3t$nadp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me> <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org> <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me> <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me> <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org> <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me> <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org> <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me> <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org> <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me> <bf1e010d6259a4e5e1118f51856f3c72a0094b34@i2pn2.org> <vsht8v$90ss$6@dont-email.me> <524b81bf3658a42bcba56f807fce28bfea67d36f@i2pn2.org> <vsi7tk$jd38$4@dont-email.me> <0b211b499961466f2b6a69af2f9a337c9f59bf9b@i2pn2.org> <vskr0r$378kj$8@dont-email.me> <912b0fe8dba03ab574ac0577f8eb754cabca4a5c@i2pn2.org> <vsn2ji$1pot5$2@dont-email.me> <41e7e701841c084157ea44641878452ccccc172d@i2pn2.org> <vsn3en$1pot5$3@dont-email.me> <vso333$2uqqo$1@dont-email.me> <vsrrbv$2ssgf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 11:56:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffcbcd8b5ffdbccdbf34418e761fb7db";
	logging-data="764345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f3sLzRMfZ2d1axA/xF8WD"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ClFasyuMf6hCBOgtCxa4sCXVZQU=

On 2025-04-05 18:04:47 +0000, olcott said:

> On 4/4/2025 2:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-03 22:52:07 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 4/3/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/25 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/2025 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/2/25 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/2/2025 8:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:37:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> But DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>> that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its final halt
>>>>>>>>>>> state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non- halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You already admitted that you are lying about this.
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps never reaches its
>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>> *finite
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> HHH sees this in one recursive emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>>>> It must also return the right value.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> By process of elimination and by the above criteria
>>>>>>> we can determine that not stopping the emulation
>>>>>>> causes HHH to never halt. This only leaves stopping
>>>>>>> the emulation that semantically entails that the
>>>>>>> input must be rejected.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, because HHH must do what HHH does.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> So I am tong because you claim that HHH
>>>>> does not do what it does?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The problem is that your logic claims that HHH doesn't do what it does, 
>>>> which is just emulate its inputpartially and them return.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 HHH(DDD) returns then
>> so does DDD(), at least in any conforming implementation.
> 
> Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by HHH
> is the straw-man deception error of reasoning.

To answer a question you have asked is not a change of subject.
Perhaps you are too stupid to understand the concept of question
but at least you successfully asked one.

-- 
Mikko