Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 07:40:38 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <05fd182cc7362c21a0b817bdcd795a9f610a58fd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me> <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
 <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me> <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me>
 <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me> <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn9eu$2jkdj$4@dont-email.me> <vpnehd$2kaqd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpoqs2$2vaf3$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:40:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2029402"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vpoqs2$2vaf3$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3962
Lines: 53

On 2/26/25 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
>> 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.

But you need to be talking about the halting or infinite running of a 
PROGRAN, so I gues you are just admitting that your whole argument has 
been a strawman.

> 
> 
>>  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.
> 

No, YOU can't keep track of what you claim to be talking about, because 
you are trying to talk about something you are ignorant of.

You just don't understand enough to know what the words you say mean, 
and are too stupid to see that.