Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:18:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 132 Message-ID: <102rtfn$2doc9$6@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1026s46$j3rp$4@dont-email.me> <10296qc$17rpl$1@dont-email.me> <1029le9$1ah2f$7@dont-email.me> <102bep1$1sc5m$1@dont-email.me> <102c2qk$20jl4$6@dont-email.me> <102h202$3dls5$1@dont-email.me> <102k0aa$793t$7@dont-email.me> <102m4d4$r0nu$1@dont-email.me> <102mnv8$uef9$13@dont-email.me> <102p0e8$1k1fb$1@dont-email.me> <102q1a8$1shmm$2@dont-email.me> <102rd88$2a3uk$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 16:18:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63f5a31218c206cdc0eff2369981bb26"; logging-data="2548105"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197/d9boAYccLPi1oThfdlg" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rv6MAGIQMJTezEdt/oDzbUGbOeE= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250617-2, 6/17/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <102rd88$2a3uk$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 6/17/2025 4:41 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-16 21:11:36 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/16/2025 6:50 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-15 15:13:44 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/15/2025 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-14 14:17:46 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/13/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:11:32 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you get that LIE from? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion(); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am no so stupid that I require a complete >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a non-terminating input. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH >>>>>>>>>> to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its >>>>>>>> own "return" statement final halt state. This by itself >>>>>>>> *is* complete proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies >>>>>>>> non-halting behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not. The words "cannot possibly" are not sufficiently >>>>>>> meaningful to prove anything. HHH does what it does and does >>>>>>> not what it does not. But what it can or cannot do, possiby or >>>>>>> otherwise? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is required that one have the technical competence of >>>>>> a first year CS student that knows C to understand that >>>>>> it is self-evident that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies >>>>>> behavior such that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot >>>>>> possibly reach its simulated "return" statement. >>>>> >>>>> The meaning of "self-evident" excludes all requirements of >>>>> any technical competence. >>>>> >>>>> The meaning of "cannot possibly", if there is any, is too far from >>>>> clear that a sentence containing it could be self-evident. >>>>> >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> Where DDD is correctly simulated by HHH is >>>> merely a more complex form of this same pattern: >>>> >>>> void H() >>>> { >>>>    D(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> void D() >>>> { >>>>    H(); >>>> } >>> >>> Nice to see that you don't disagree. >>> >>> But I'm afraid you may forget. >> >> I have never seen any agreement form you for anything >> that I have ever said. > > You rarely say anything one could agree without looking stupid. > It seems to me that you are only interested in rebuttal. That is not an honest dialogue. >> If you agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies >> a non-halting sequence of configurations we can move >> on to the next step. > > It does not make sense to say "a non-halting sequence of configurations". > That sequence cannot halt because it is not running. If you mean that > the sequence is infinitely long then say so. > In other words you baselessly reject the whole notion of simulating termination analyzers. That this rejection is baseless seems dishonest. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer