Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 2024-07-15 13:26:22 +0000, olcott said:*Premise* (assumed to be true)
On 7/15/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:That is not an acceptable axiom. That you are unable to prove thatOn 2024-07-14 14:38:31 +0000, olcott said:>
>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.
That the input is aborted does not mean that the input must be aborted.
Weasel words. This is an axiom:
Input XXX must be aborted to prevent the non-termination of HHH.
either XXX is aborted or HHH does not terminate is insufficient
reason to call it an axiom.
When simulated input X stops running {if and only if}From the fact that XXX must be aborted we can conclude that XXX must be aborted.Nothing that contains the word "must" is a fact.
I can't see how you were simply not flat out dishonest.
That you cannot do something without being dishoest does not prevent us.--
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.