Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:50:31 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <07c8b155cd83b8e988801fd72c674470c87b999e@i2pn2.org> References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> <3934e2e00d99f64acc48e858d0dddd89af48759d@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 16:50:31 -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: 6720 Lines: 95 Am Tue, 18 Feb 2025 10:34:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 2/18/2025 7:48 AM, joes wrote: >> 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? >> > When I focus on one single-point: > [D simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally] > I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed. Way to derail. > Since there is about a 7% chance that my very drastic cancer treatment > will kill me in the next 100 days I must insist on 100% perfectly and > completely addressing this point before moving on to any other points. Oh right, I wanted to wait a month for your 5% chance. When exactly is it? >>> 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.