Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 10:38:34 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 97 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:38:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a14a055df37b635f93113254737f4d81"; logging-data="2910194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wMHC2Y5OTPCQLdoe09WSo" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:+S1XZoapRTgz+VHHAvgPFcTcuQA= Bytes: 5854 On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said: > On 2/19/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-02-18 11:26:25 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. Those two comments are not discussed below. >>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly >>> terminate normally. >> >> That cannot be determined without examination of HHH, which is not in the >> scope of OP. > > I have given everyone here all of the complete source > code for a few years True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that particular code. -- Mikko