XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/20/24 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly   
   > exist aborts its simulation.   
      
   But every HHH that is a decider does.   
      
   >   
   > void DDD()   
   > {   
   >    HHH(DDD);   
   >    return;   
   > }   
   >   
   > It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any   
   > pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.   
   >   
      
   No, you show that the EMULATION BY HHH never reaches that point, not   
   that DDD doesn't reach that point.   
      
   You miss the fact that EVERY DDD built on an HHH that aborts is   
   emulation and returns to its caller makes a DDD that does reach its own   
   return instruction, though after that HHH has aborted it emulation, so   
   the HHH never gets that knowledge.   
      
   You are just ignorant of the differnce between the TRUTH of the   
   program's behavior from the limited KNOWLEDGE gotten from the PARTIAL   
   EMULAITON.   
      
   It also seems you just don't understnd what a program actualy is as you   
   LIE about what needs to be considered the representation of DDD to give   
   to HHH.   
      
   You are just proving that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological   
   lying idiot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)