XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/20/2025 10:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>
>>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>
>>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>>
>>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>>> and following code and execution traces.
>>>
>>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>>
>>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>
>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this. Prove it with a
>> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
>
> Go to Google Groups and search.
>
>> It must be actual agreement with those
>> actual words or you are still a liar.
>
> From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
> would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
> that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
> furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
> reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
> and D that must be given different names.)
>
It proves that the input to H(D) specifies
non-halting behavior.
Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.
We stay in the C/C++ groups until we have
complete mutual agreement on the C. As soon
as that occurs we leave these groups.
> I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
> Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
> anything.
>
> [I see you annoyingly added the comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ newsgroups
> to the crossposts. I didn't catch it, but I'm double checking and
> superseding my articles to remove that.]
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
