Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 21:53:26 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6e37f2a6ccc3e5277892bd9c8b246037ba2e9894@i2pn2.org> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 02:14:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="825359"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <102q1a8$1shmm$2@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 6/16/25 5:11 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. Maybe because you are never right? > > If you agree that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies > a non-halting sequence of configurations we can move > on to the next step. > But since it doesn't, you have reached a dead end. Forcing people to agree to lies isn't going to get you very far.