Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:00:31 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 01:00:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2112681"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4740 Lines: 76 On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott: >>> On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> HHH emulates this DD. >>>>>> On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution. >>>>> >>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program. >>>>>> You don't understand this simple entanglement. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless having no influence causes itself to >>>>> never terminate then the one influence that >>>>> it must have is stopping the emulation of this input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but >>>> aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated >>>> simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour. >>> >>> We have only been talking abort normal termination of a >>> C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no >>> idea what "normal termination" means. >> >> It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been >> proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH >> describes a program that terminates normally. > > > >> That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure of >> HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described by >> this finite string. >> >>> >>>> Aborting a program with halting behaviour >>> >>> We have not been talking about halting for a long >>> time. This term has proven to be far too vague. >>> Normal termination of a C function means reaching >>> its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness. >> >> Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its >> return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more >> vague. >> >>> >>> >>>>  does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim that >>>> when you close your eyes, things do not happen. >>> >>> You can't even keep track of what we are talking about. >>> >> >> Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion. >> It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your >> eyes. >> > > When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate > normally it is flat out dishonest to say that I am > wrong based on another different DD that has different behavior. > That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using. You are just proving your stupidity.