XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/20/24 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 7/20/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 20.jul.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:   
   >>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No, you try to get away with saying that a HHH that is coded to abort   
   >> and halt, will never stop running, only because you are dreaming of   
   >> *another* HHH that does not abort.   
   >>   
   >   
   > *You know that I didn't say anything like that*   
   >   
   > Unless I refer to the infinite set of every possible   
   > HHH my reviewers try to get away with saying that I am   
   > referring to the wrong HHH.   
   >   
   > void DDD()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   >    return;   
   > }   
   >   
   > DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot   
   > possibly reach its own return instruction.   
   >   
   >   
      
   And the problem you ignore is that each HHH is given the DDD that calls   
   itself, and not some other HHH, and thus you can't look at the other   
   HHHs behavior with their different behavior (in particular, the HHH/DDD   
   pair where HHH doesn't abort) but look at giving this exact input,   
   calling this exact HHH to a "correct emulator" that doesn't abort its   
   emulation.   
      
   You logic of looking at other HHHs is just a LIE and proves you don't   
   understand either Computations or Logic, or even what Truth itself is.   
      
   EVERY DDD that calls an HHH that aborts and returns will reach its own   
   return instruction. so your claim is just a lie.   
      
   You confuse that DDD with the PARTIAL emulation that HHH did, which   
   doesn't show the full behavior of DDD, only partial.   
      
   This appears to be because you just don't understand the difference   
   between Truth and Knowledge which shows you don't really know what   
   EITHER of them actually is, so, you are just proving you total inability   
   tto understand how logic actually works.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)