Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 19:02:34 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 00:02:34 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1324222"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6569 Lines: 106 On 2/22/25 11:06 AM, olcott wrote: > 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a truism. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will point out the error. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies. >>>>>>>>>> Yes, please shut up. >>>>>>>>>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as >>>>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second >>>>>>>>> recursive >>>>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally >>>>>>>>> misleading >>>>>>>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that >>>>>>>> basically >>>>>>>> toggles termination? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 referring to > all of the code and all of code this this code refers to > in every other file. > > If you want to refer to one statement every software engineer > knows this means FILENAME : LINE NUMBER. > ANd thus HHH has fixed defined behavior, and talking about it behaving differently is just a LIE. You don't get to change your fixed parameters, and HHH can't be a variable and still have DD be a valid input, as the input string must be a constant. Your failure to understand this just shows your total ignorance of the topic, and your refusal to learn shows your stupidity.