Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko 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 12:08:48 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 67 Message-ID: <102tvn0$31jro$1@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102nq66$17hi5$1@dont-email.me> <102ovlm$1jq9i$1@dont-email.me> <102pikk$1odus$4@dont-email.me> <102retk$2ai8v$1@dont-email.me> <102rqqi$2doc9$1@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 11:08:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b9189706bebe16779078fa6281ff557"; logging-data="3198840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EoJuVG42BsgvLbzSsa3/i" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:6/oQtVlxATtpmAMAwUA0hc+d0Zo= On 2025-06-17 13:33:05 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/17/2025 5:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-16 17:01:08 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> 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. >> >> Tnat means that you think the program >> >> int HHH((void *)x(void)) { >>  return 1; >> } >> >> when called with HHH(DDD) would return 0 >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> to indicate that DDD does not halt? >> > > Your HHH is not s simulating termination analyzer as required: Your "every HHH that could possibly exist" does not mention simulation. -- Mikko