XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott:   
   > On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott:   
   >>> On 6/24/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>> Op 23.jun.2025 om 16:50 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>> On 6/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>> Op 22.jun.2025 om 21:27 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>> On 6/22/2025 11:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2025 om 16:53 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ???   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a proof   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that square circles exist.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would seem to make you a liar.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how this is not correct:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> though the end is only one cycle further from the point   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it gave up the simulation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> and halt, the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating HHH, so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH is only one cycle away from the same point.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this.   
   >>>>>>>>>>> All CS graduates would understand this.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> That you do not understand what I write makes it difficult for   
   >>>>>>>>>> you to learn from your errors.   
   >>>>>>>>>> It is not that difficult. Try again and pay full attention to it.   
   >>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort   
   >>>>>>>>>> and halt,   
   >>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so   
   >>>>>>>>>> that when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only   
   >>>>>>>>>> one cycle away from the same point.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Yes this is factual.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> *This is only ordinary computer programming with*   
   >>>>>>>>> *no theory of computation computer science required*   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator   
   >>>>>>>>> no matter how deep the recursive simulations go. This means   
   >>>>>>>>> that the outermost directly executed HHH reaches its abort   
   >>>>>>>>> criteria first.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> And it fails to see that the simulated HHH would reach exactly   
   >>>>>>>> the same abort criteria one cycle later.   
   >>>>>>>> In this way, it misses the fact that it is simulating an HHH   
   >>>>>>>> that would abort and halt.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()   
   >>>>>>> {   
   >>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>>>>>    printf("Fred Zwarts can't understand this is never reached\n");   
   >>>>>>> }   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Another claim without any evidence.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Olcott does not understand that his HHH does not see an infinite   
   >>>>>> loop.   
   >>>>>> It aborts and halt, so the recursion is finite.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You didn't even use the term recursion correctly.   
   >>>>> Infinite loops have nothing to do with recursion.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And infinite loops have nothing to do with a simulator simulating   
   >>>> itself. Therefore, talking about infinite loops is changing the   
   >>>> subject.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Mike understands that HHH could recognize an infinite   
   >>>>> loop correctly.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>     The process in which a function calls itself directly   
   >>>>>     or indirectly is called recursion and the corresponding   
   >>>>>     function is called a recursive function.   
   >>>>> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-recursion-2/   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Lines 987 to 992 is where infinite loops are recognized   
   >>>>> Lines 996 to 1005 is where infinite recursion is recognized   
   >>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> HHH correctly emulates the x86 machine code of its   
   >>>>> input until one of those two patterns is matched.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But there is a bug in the code that tries to recognise an infinite   
   >>>> recursion.   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)