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

On 2/25/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 9:15 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 already corrected you on this misunderstanding.
HHH has two versions the real one and the imaginary
on that never aborts the simulation of its input.
>
>
>

>
>
And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that never aborts the simulation of its input.

>
You already said that F halts after ten invocations
and and that F does not halt.
>

>
Changing the subject to the direct execution of no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.
>
The subject is the correct simulation of no_numbers_greater_than_10 by F.

>
Show me all of the code with the > 10
conditional branch and line numbers and
a line number by line number execution
trace or I will write you off as playing head games.
>

>
The actual code of F doesn't matter, as your criteria requires replacing all of the code of F with an unconditional simulator.
>
So according to you, the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F is defined by the following hypothetical code.
>
1  int F(uintptr_t p)
2  {
3    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */

Too vague
i > 10 is missing

Not at all.  F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as measured by your criteria of replacing all code of F with an unconditional simulator.

4  }
5
6  int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
7  {
8     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
9  }
10
11 int main()
12 {
13    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
14    return 0;
15 }
>
The trace of this is 13, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code), ...
>
So clearly no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as per your criteria
>