Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN --- Saving Democracy

On 2/24/2025 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:

>
>

>
HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely
hypothetical (imaginary never implemented)
HHH that never aborts its simulation.
>

>
>
Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F that performs a correct unaborted simulation.

>
The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never
terminate conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior
that cannot possibly terminate normally.

>
And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never terminate conclusively proves that no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies behavior that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>
Agreed?

>
I will not discuss your code.
>

>
I'll let you respond to yourself here:
>
On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain
 > all of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that
 > because I am correct.
>
>

>
Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an
irrelevant change of subject away from the point.
>
>

>
>
That is counter-factual.
>
According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH is defined by this code:
>
int HHH(ptr P)
{
     /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
}
>

 I NEVER MEANT THAT
 

It sure sounds like you did:
On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
 >>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return"
 >>> instruction.
 >>
 >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
 >>
 >
 > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.