Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:

On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:

On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:

On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:

On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:

On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:

On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon

Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next
month will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I
will totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.

Ok, I will wait a month then.
>

Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it
cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort
the correct simulation before it sees that the correct simulation
terminates normally.
>

The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition.
it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.

>
If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot
claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a
2 years old child.

>
HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it
specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate
normally.
>

Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are no
substitute for reasoning.
The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does
not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program
terminates normally.
>

It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
(a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation after itself is no longer
being simulated.
>
(b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation of none of them do.

Which does not change the fact that simulating HHH does not see that
the simulated HHH would also abort,

 
The simulated HHH cannot possibly abort because it can't possibly get to
the point where it sees that it needs to abort because it is aborted
before it gets to this point.

Unless the outermost HHH aborts before any inner HHH sees that it needs
to abort no HHH ever aborts.