Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 22:07:25 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 73 Message-ID: <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me> <1b0f211d64311dca26f3c00cf5fda41bf6ad938b@i2pn2.org> <102pnvr$1q95t$1@dont-email.me> <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 05:07:25 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26"; logging-data="2257928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UEsOcJChe2RQbxlUF/Z9k" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sjl1WbO2EVjJghrOvDG73KZxnMk= In-Reply-To: <4339aa001ca817a22529706b4d1de4ac820e9016@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250616-6, 6/16/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US On 6/16/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/16/25 2:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/16/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2025 6:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/25 4:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>    return; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly >>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination >>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated "return" >>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge. >>>>> >>>>> And it seems you don't understand that the problem is that while, >>>>> yes, if HHH does infact do a correct simulation, it will not reach >>>>> a final state, that fact only applie *IF* HHH does that, and all >>>>> the other HHHs which differ see different inputs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I should have said* >>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly >>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH >>>> then DDD never reaches its simulated "return" statement >>>> final halt state. >>>> >>> >>> So? >>> >>> Since that isn't the criteria that the decider is supposed to answer >>> by, it is just a strawman. >>> >> >> *You merely dishonestly changed the subject* > > No I didn't, the subject is about "Halting" > > Halting is defined for PROGRAMS > > >> >> Whenever I challenge anyone to provide the details to show >> exactly how the below (a) & (b) is not true they ignore this >> challenge and change the subject. >> >>    (a) One of more instructions of DDD are correctly >>    simulated by some simulating termination analyzer HHH. >> >>    (b) None of the above simulated DDD instances ever >>    reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state. > > Since that isn't the definition of Halting/Non-Halting, it is just a > strawman. > > Non-Halting isn't just that a partial simulation doesn't reach a final > state, and that is what your (a) describes, as to be NOT partial, it > must simulate *ALL* the instructions. > > The fuller definition of non-halting is that a machine is non-halting if > it will not reach a final state performing an UNBOUNDED number of steps. > In other words you do not understand what every CS graduate would understand: That once a non-halting behavior pattern is correctly matched in a finite number of steps that this conclusively proves non-halting. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer