Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations +++ Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:22:41 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 136 Message-ID: <102u0h1$31pue$1@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$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> <102rtfn$2doc9$6@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 11:22:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9b9189706bebe16779078fa6281ff557"; logging-data="3205070"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SE4e5cdAK6jG2/6UDRJSz" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:eV1eVPOhBsck6ZI94Lh4j9hDt7A= On 2025-06-17 14:18:31 +0000, olcott said: > 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. Honesty and interest are distinct concepts. Apparently you don't know what they mean (or at least what one of them means). >>> 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. Your "in other words" is yet another attempt of a straw man deception. -- Mikko