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: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 14:27:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 125 Message-ID: <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me> <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 21:27:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66fa87458275bba6d41e4f6f2917b163"; logging-data="755469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+G6iKYoeRGqPU97XxH/eZD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jZ6QbZT5VLsh6ZU4jAL/OHx913U= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250622-4, 6/22/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me> On 6/22/2025 11:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 20.jun.2025 om 16:53 schreef olcott: >> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read. >>>>>>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic >>>>>>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting >>>>>>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a recipe >>>>>>>>> to draw a square circle does not count as a proof that square >>>>>>>>> circles exist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to >>>>>>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest. >>>>>>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have >>>>>>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong >>>>>>>> this would seem to make you a liar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details >>>>>>>> of how this is not correct: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH >>>>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its >>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though >>>>>>> the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up >>>>>>> the simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again? >>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and >>>>> halt, the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, >>>>> so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only >>>>> one cycle away from the same point. >>>> >>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is. >>>> First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this. >>>> All CS graduates would understand this. >>> >>> That you do not understand what I write makes it difficult for you to >>> learn from your errors. >>> It is not that difficult. Try again and pay full attention to it. >>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt, >>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that >>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle >>> away from the same point. >> >> Yes this is factual. >> >> *This is only ordinary computer programming with* >> *no theory of computation computer science required* >> >> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator >> no matter how deep the recursive simulations go. This means >> that the outermost directly executed HHH reaches its abort >> criteria first. > > And it fails to see that the simulated HHH would reach exactly the same > abort criteria one cycle later. > In this way, it misses the fact that it is simulating an HHH that would > abort and halt. > void Infinite_Loop() { HERE: goto HERE; printf("Fred Zwarts can't understand this is never reached\n"); } >> >> This means that none of simulated HHH have reached their >> abort criteria. This means that their own abort code is >> unreachable at the point where the outermost HHH would >> abort. > > They do not reach its, even if the abort criteria are reachable, because > the simulator halts its simulation too soon. That is not the behaviour > of the program specified in the input, but erroneous behaviour of the > simulator. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer