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: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:21:42 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 86 Message-ID: <1030ham$3p6le$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> <102rcol$29lrl$3@dont-email.me> <102rv4v$2doc9$10@dont-email.me> <102ukn2$369b2$6@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 10:21:42 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3795b2b31d9ed69cd0c8b5cdd7fda16b"; logging-data="3971758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19JOMKYr96NhcHyeIdW1v+8" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:pGFX/jD7SGIRxQXbfb3iJtwdjk8= On 2025-06-18 15:07:14 +0000, olcott said: > 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 No, he did not. The paragraph responded to was about first year CS students and what know, and so is the response. -- Mikko