Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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 18:32:07 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <24e75f0308da2fd6a08d00b631e70ab54b952df3@i2pn2.org> References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 23:32:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="696718"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6622 Lines: 114 On 2/18/25 8:37 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>> >>>>>> int DD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>   if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>   return Halt_Status; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> int main() >>>>>> { >>>>>>   HHH(DD); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully > deficient than I ever imagined. > > 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. > > > And you miss, that since the first does it, all of them do it, and thus are haltingt. You seem to thing that the behavior of a program is defined by an aborted partial simulation of it, instead of its actual behavior. Sorry, you are just proving how STUPID you are, and that you "logic" is just a FRAUD.