Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

Op 28.feb.2025 om 05:25 schreef olcott:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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

>
>

The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact that
HHH emulates this DD.

On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.

>

On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>

>
Unless having no influence causes itself to
never terminate then the one influence that
it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.
>

>
>
If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour.

>
We have only been talking abort normal termination of a
C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no
idea what "normal termination" means.

>
It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH describes a program that terminates normally.

>
>
>

That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure of HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described by this finite string.
>

>

Aborting a program with halting behaviour

>
We have not been talking about halting for a long
time. This term has proven to be far too vague.
Normal termination of a C function means reaching
its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness.

>
Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more vague.
>

>
>

 does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim that when you close your eyes, things do not happen.

>
You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.
>

>
Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.
It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your eyes.
>

>
When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate
normally it is flat out dishonest to say that I am
wrong based on another different DD that has different behavior.
>

>
That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
>

 DD emulated by HHH explicitly excludes directly executed DD
that has a different execution trace.
 

Show the two traces and mark the first instruction that is executed differently. This has been asked for a long time. That Olcott is not able to should how the two traces diverge, indicates that there is no different behaviour. The only difference is that HHH is unable to complete the simulation, whereas the direct execution has no problem to complete. This is a problem of HHH, not of DD.