Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 7:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if HHH(DDD) does,

>
>
*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>
Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
with arithmetic.
>

>
But if HHH does abort

>
int x = 5;
int y = 3;
if (x > y) // *before abort*
{
   printf("x > y is necessarily true\n");
   y = 2 * x;  // *after abort*
}
>
>
>

>
Red Hering, showin your utter stupidity.
>

>
In other words giving up on you was the correct thing
to do. You have proven to be incorrigible when you
consistently deny tautologies.
>

>
No, you dont have tautologies,

 Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
The input to HHH is ALL of the memory that it would be accessed in a correct simulation of DDD, which includes all the codd of HHH, and thus, if you change HHH you get a different input.
If you want to try to claim the input is just the bytes of the function DDD proper then you are just admitting that you are nothing more than a lying idiot that doesn't understand the problem, and who refuses to understand the problem, and that EVERYTHING you have said over the years has been based on a LIE that your problem has been setup as an equivelent to the proofs you want to try to refute.
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A STUPID LIAR.

 

but LIE based on changing the meaning of words.
>

 That is what you have been doing.
 

Nope YOU are the one that has been changing the meaning of the words, as you don't use them with the meaning they have in the field.
That makes YOU the liar.