XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:   
   >>> void DDD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> int main()   
   >>> {   
   >>>    DDD();   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt   
   >>> this is a design requirement.   
   >>>   
   >>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either   
   >>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.   
   >>>   
   >>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort   
   >>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}   
   >>> never stop running.   
   >>>   
   >>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must   
   >>> abort the simulation of its input.   
   >>   
   >> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and   
   >> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt   
   >> of its own.   
   >   
   > So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH   
   > ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH   
   > will stop running?   
   >   
      
   It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not need   
   to. The only DDD that we care about are the DDD that are built on HHH   
   that answers, and to answer for such a DDD, HHH will need to abort, and   
   from that, we make the DDD that ends up not needing to abort.   
      
   Yes, that sounds contradictory, but that is because they are two   
   different questions. The first is you decision of what HHH to put into   
   the challenge, and with your limited set of options that you have   
   limited yourself to, you need to choose one of the aborting ones, or you   
   will lose by not answering.   
      
   *THEN* the input is created for that specific HHH that you have chosen,   
   and now we can actually evaluate the actual NEED to abort but the   
   behavior of an unaborted emulation of THIS PARTICULAR input, which   
   includes the HHH that it was paired with. That emulator can't be put in   
   the location of HHH, but can be put somewhere else in memory, and it   
   will show that DDD will halt, and thus HHH doesn't NEED to abort, even   
   though it DOES.   
      
   The problem is you broke your system such that you can't talk about   
   giving a given DDD (which includes the HHH that it calls) to any other   
   HHH the way you talk about it, so your wording is just illogical words   
   that can't mean what they need to mean. To have built DDD properly, it   
   SHOULD have included its own copy of the HHH that it was going to   
   confound, but you system doesn't allow that operation because it seems   
   to not actually be Turing Complete in what it takes as inputs.   
      
   The fact you persist after this has been pointed out just shows that   
   either you are just totally mentally incompetent, or you are just a   
   pathological liar that doesn't care that their words are not logical and   
   the "facts" they use are not true.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)