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

On 2/25/25 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/25/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:

On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>

Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
article before or when HHH

That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
talking about in this forum for several years.

Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
that paper.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.

It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
possibly show otherwise.

The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.

When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
I will point out the error.

We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
Since when DD run, it halts,

THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE

Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?

I will begin ignoring insincere replies.

Yes, please shut up.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?

The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.

How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
toggles termination?

>
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.

>
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.

>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.

>
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
>

>
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.

>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/ blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
>

>
I am not talking about one statement.

>
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE."
>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.

>
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.

>
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.

>
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.

>
That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
>

>
DD does not terminate normally either way so it
is stupid to need to know which one.
>

>
OF course DD terminates normally if HHH aborts its simulation.
>

 Only if you are clueless about both c and x86, otherwise
it is dead obvious that the entire recursive chain totally
stops and zero elements of the recursive chain can possibly
reach their "ret" or "return" instruction as soon as the
outermost instance is aborted.

No, it is dead obvious that since the HHH that DD DOES ABORT (and to say otherwise is just a DAMNED LIE) then the behavior of the executed DD is to return.
IT seems it is YOU that is clueless as to the behavior of what you are talking about.
THe code above is *NOT* a valid C program, as HHH is not defined, and thus you can't talk about it "behavior" per the C language, unless you include the code from your Halt7.c file, but then you have fully defined the behaivor of HHH, and can't talk about it doing something else.
Also, it is clear you don't understand the behavior of the x86 as you think it is "correct" to presume that the execution of a program will just spontainously abort, since that is the behavior you are calling a correct simulation of that input.

 Since this is ordinary software engineering and requires zero
knowledge of computer science that proves that anyone disagreeing
is simply clueless.
 

No, ait proves that you are just a clueless pathological liar.
This is confirmed by the fact you have never shown any actual basis for any of your claims, the closest you have come is trying to quote some other people making the same mistakes.
Sorry, but you are just proving that you are totally ignorant of what you say, and don't care about that, as you are just a pathological liar.