Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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 10:07:14 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 95 Message-ID: <102ukn2$369b2$6@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> <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 17:07:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="181068feba52be991947ff9f62d7131d"; logging-data="3351906"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Du8+afv51nNL5MowDOtzX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:31dE6azjeMQXjloUSXsGAxF2ji4= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250618-4, 6/18/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US On 6/17/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/17/25 10:46 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> >> > > No, they understand that a pattern seen is a halting program (since you > admit that DDD halts when run directly) can't be a pattern that proves > the program is non-halting. > You changed the subject from THIS EXACT POINT *none of them ever stop running unless aborted* (a) YES that is true (b) No that is not true Here are the exact steps of how X stops running without every being aborted. > It seems you think that you can proves false statements. > > In other words, you logic lies. I am not the one that perpetually changes the subject to avoid addressing the actual point. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer