Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:09:52 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:09:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1683213"; 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: 5217 Lines: 70 Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:22:23 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said: >>> On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run >>>>>>>>>> forever. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program >>>>>>>> itself so we can say that the program could run forever. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless the >>>>>>> C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD this DD >>>>>>> C function DOES NOT TERMINATE. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ >>>>>> master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is >>>>>> simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then >>>>>> that statement is false. >>>>>> >>>>> I am not talking about one statement. >>>> >>>> I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its >>>> simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT >>>> TERMINATE." >>>> >>>> If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ >>>> master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is >>>> simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then >>>> that statement is false. >>> >>> Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities? >>> It really seems that you do not. >> >> Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and >> does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility. >> > HHH aborts its emulation of DD. > When we imagine the exact same HHH with the one single change that it > never aborts its input then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly > terminate normally. LOLOLOL that is not "the exact same HHH" -- 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.