Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" 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: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:44:27 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 78 Message-ID: <102rddr$29lrl$5@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> <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 11:44:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a700b71dbbe16051eaf1c05090daefba"; logging-data="2414453"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xtCK/JriXCWqDvEkkz92n" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:16ejzJncqsBnPmFe6y6ATUEQJ1Q= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <102qm5d$24t08$1@dont-email.me> Op 17.jun.2025 om 05:07 schreef olcott: > 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. Irrelevant, because such a CS graduate will also understand that a finite recursion is not a pattern for non-halting behaviour. Your HHH has code to abort and halt, so there is no non-halting pattern in it, because it aborts after a finite number of recursions. Or are you still cheating with the Root variable?