Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:48:34 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org> References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:48:34 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="626721"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5963 Lines: 81 Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 07:37:54 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: >>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above >>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns >>>>>>>>>>>>> 0. >>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and >>>>>>>>>>>> not trying to get away with changing the subject to some >>>>>>>>>>>> other DD somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows >>>>>>>>>>>> that no instance of DD shown above simulated by any >>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance of HHH can possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider. >>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination >>>>>>>>>> analyzer. >>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input >>>>>>>>>> that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination. >>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we >>>>>>>>> *know* that it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have >>>>>>>>> your cake and eat it too. >>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts". >>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally". >>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does not >>>>>>> imply an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate >>>>>>> DD terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate >>>>>>> abnormally itself? >>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not need to >>>>>>> be aborted, because the simulated decider terminates. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to prevent the >>>>>> non-termination of HHH is stipulated to be correctly rejected by >>>>>> HHH as non-terminating. >>>>>> >>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation. >>>> >>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary meaning. >>>> >>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly >>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language can see >>> this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop after the >>> "if" statement. >>> >> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of itself it >> sees called does that. >> > Not at all. I mean, this is a deterministic program without any static variables, amirite? > Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH that sees > the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation none of them do > because they all have the exact same code. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.