Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 07:37:54 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: 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 14:37:55 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5aaf7caa069ced84c882718c80899ee5"; logging-data="1811745"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QA34WeBhOnfWyJY4EduZH" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5VeSqBTT9td2Kf223Igr3n6nlWw= In-Reply-To: <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250218-2, 2/18/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 6405 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer