Path: 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: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:18:55 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 72 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <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: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 21:18:55 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae201e38c002ff017d1bbcae453456e6"; logging-data="3430724"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PokbUTr1Ui1LICy7yJ6MW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Sz8pf1McNq8h7qTLpwWNNdgN7EY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250227-10, 2/27/2025), Outbound message 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer