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

On 7/16/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/16/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-15 13:26:22 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/15/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 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.

>
That is not an acceptable axiom. That you are unable to prove that
either XXX is aborted or HHH does not terminate is insufficient
reason to call it an axiom.
>

 *Premise* (assumed to be true)
Any input that must be aborted to prevent
the non termination of HHH

That needs to be PROPERLY defined, or it just a false statement.

 *Logically entailed by the above premise*
necessarily specifies non-halting behavior or
it would never need to be aborted.

Which, with your wrong definition, leads to your wrong answer.
"Must be aborted" should mean giving that exact same represented program to a correct emulator will not abort ever.
Since you claimed input isn't even a program, you just fail to be able to even talk about using that definition.

 

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.
>

 When simulated input X stops running {if and only if}
the simulation of this input X has been aborted this
necessitates that input X specifies non-halting behavior.

But since the simulition of the DDD that calls the HHH that aborts it will reach a final state, we see that this claim is incorrect.
Either your input doesn't include the code of HHH, at which point the simulation MUST STOP at the call HHH instruction, meaning it can't be a non-halting simulition.
or, your inp[ut includes the code of HHH, at which point you can't change the code of HHH at the address specified to do you analysis, but give it to the unconditional emulating versio of HHH loaded at a different address, while DDD still cause the original HHH, and that one WILL HALT too, so HHH is wrong.

 

I can't see how you were simply not flat out dishonest.

 

>
That you cannot do something without being dishoest does not prevent us.
>