Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN --- Saving Democracy Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:10:10 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 18:10:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1752334"; 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: 6834 Lines: 112 Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:44:30 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 2/25/2025 8:56 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 2/25/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 2/24/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 9:15 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely hypothetical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (imaginary never implemented) HHH that never aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that performs a correct unaborted simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate conclusively proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies behavior that cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I will not discuss your code. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll let you respond to yourself here: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>  > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would >>>>>>>>>>>>  > explain all of the details of how I am incorrect. You >>>>>>>>>>>>  > can't do that because I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an irrelevant >>>>>>>>>>> change of subject away from the point. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>> According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>> is defined by this code: >>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P) >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>      /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */ >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I already corrected you on this misunderstanding. HHH has two >>>>>>>>> versions the real one and the imaginary on that never aborts the >>>>>>>>> simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that >>>>>>>> never aborts the simulation of its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You already said that F halts after ten invocations and and that F >>>>>>> does not halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Changing the subject to the direct execution of >>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman >>>>>> deception. >>>>>> The subject is the correct simulation of no_numbers_greater_than_10 >>>>>> by F. >>>>> >>>>> Show me all of the code with the > 10 conditional branch and line >>>>> numbers and a line number by line number execution trace or I will >>>>> write you off as playing head games. >>>>> >>>> The actual code of F doesn't matter, as your criteria requires >>>> replacing all of the code of F with an unconditional simulator. >>>> >>>> So according to you, the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10 >>>> simulated by F is defined by the following hypothetical code. >>>> 1  int F(uintptr_t p) >>>> 2  { >>>> 3    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */ >>> Too vague i > 10 is missing >> >> Not at all.  F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that >> no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as >> measured by your criteria of replacing all code of F with an >> unconditional simulator. > I AM NEVER RELPLACING ALL THE CODE STF ABOUT THAT Yes you are turning off the abort check in line 1052 IIRC. >>>> 4  } >>>> 5 >>>> 6  int no_numbers_greater_than_10() >>>> 7  { >>>> 8     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10); >>>> 9  } >>>> 10 11 int main() >>>> 12 { >>>> 13    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10); >>>> 14    return 0; >>>> 15 } >>>> >>>> The trace of this is 13, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code), >>>> 8, 3 (simulator code), ... >>>> So clearly no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior >>>> to F, as per your criteria -- 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.