Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS

Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:46:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/18/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:18:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/18/2024 2:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/18/2024 2:10 PM, joes wrote:

>

The existence of the check has an effect right from the start;
besides, it is true the first time it is executed.

So maybe you have ADD too. You can't seem to pay attention when
things are explained to you many different times several different
ways.

What you call "explaining" is in actual fact the assertion of
falsehoods.  This is usually called lying.
The variable Root does indeed affect your program.

*I never say that it didn't*

You said nothing at all. Productive communication would have included
an agreement and clarification.
 

The "root" variable has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the correctness or
completeness of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD until this DDD
calls HHH(DDD).

DDD does nothing else but call HHH, and Root is part of HHH, so is
simulated the first time around.

It is possible that I am not communicating this clearly enough
The root variable cannot possibly have have any effect what-so-ever on
the correctness of HHH emulating DDD or HHH emulating itself emulating
DDD until the root variable tests true.

It has the effect of not aborting the simulation.
Apart from that, Root is true in the root invocation of HHH (duh).

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.