Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:44:25 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 188 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:44:26 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5144976fea626f7db2c2a543d9b04706"; logging-data="630603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fPxbwzvpnx2Ly7sWbL5oW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:GjcO9vyOntbArLk8uWkbkV0SGsk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250223-4, 2/23/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 9789 On 2/23/2025 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-02-22 16:11:31 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 2/22/2025 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-02-21 22:35:16 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 2/21/2025 2:18 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-02-20 21:31:44 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2/19/2025 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-18 11:26:25 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming knows that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysers.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we *know* that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cake and eat it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not imply >>>>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abnormally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>   if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>>   return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>   HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary >>>>>>>>>>> meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those two comments are not discussed below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot >>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That cannot be determined without examination of HHH, which is >>>>>>>>> not in the >>>>>>>>> scope of OP. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source >>>>>>>> code for a few years >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that >>>>>>> particular >>>>>>> code. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or >>>>>> more years has referred to variations of that same code. >>>>> >>>>> OP had a pointer of that code but didn's state that that code is a >>>>> part >>>>> of the problem. OP did not spacify any range for variation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have only been talking about variations of the same code >>>> as HHH(DD) for two years. Do you understand that one sentence? >>> >>> I understnd the sentence except the word "variations". What is the >>> range of "variations"? >>> >> >> Good you are being completely reasonable. >> There are at least two algorithms the current >> one that was also the original one is easiest to >> understand. This algorithm essentially spots the >> equivalent of infinite recursion. The code provides >> all of the details. >> >>> Anyway OP did not specify that HHH is restricted to those "variations". >>> Another undefined word of OP is "cannot". About a person it may mean >>> that one does not do what one wants to do but a program does not want. >>> >> >> HHH is exactly as specified. Assuming otherwise is silly. > > The words "as specified" when nothing is specified are not a good use > of the language. > _DD() [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========