Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:42:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <102u1m6$31q0g$2@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me>
 <e56b12c126e72134e8761986f8d2d0d047560a24@i2pn2.org>
 <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me> <102ovlm$1jq9i$1@dont-email.me>
 <102pikk$1odus$4@dont-email.me> <102rcol$29lrl$3@dont-email.me>
 <102rv4v$2doc9$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 11:42:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cbe59beacd6fd352315816fb5d824c89";
	logging-data="3205136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196QakK/SwQwOhjEm1AQ4Cc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BWLCDK84R4ExYfSdUTBSpZ9gcgk=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <102rv4v$2doc9$10@dont-email.me>

Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
> On 6/17/2025 4:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 16.jun.2025 om 19:01 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/16/2025 6:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-16 00:57:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> No, that is not how you 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.
>>>>
>>>> How does ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH differ form some
>>>> other simulating termination alalyzer?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I changed the evaluation from the HHH that I have coded
>>> to every HHH that could possibly exist.
>>>
>>
>> And even a beginner can see that they all fail to reach the end of the 
>> simulation, even though the input is a pointer to code that includes 
>> the code to abort and halt.
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    return;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
> 
But the abort is programmed in the code of the HHH to be simulated, so 
these students will also understand that a correct simulation of an 
aborting program does not need to be aborted.
Or are you still cheating with the Root variable?