Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.

 I don't know where you got the false idea that "Termination Analyzers" were "Partial Halt Deciders", then most certainly are not.
 Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis for a description, they deal with the related problem of determining if the input program will halt for *ALL* inputs, not just a given one.
  Yes, in computer science, where the building of partial Termination Analyzers is an ongoing project, they often just drop the assumed partial as everyone know the general problem is not universally solvable.
 Also, the answer must be correct,
 and the input must be a PROGRAM, which mean it includes ALL its code that it uses, so for DDD, include the code for HHH.
 

>
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.

 But that is a DIFFERENT DDD then the one given to the HHH that aborted it emulation, and thus your logic is based on LYING.
 

Sure of course everyone knows that when you examine
every element of an infinite set that there are a
whole bunch of elements of this infinite set that you
never examined after you have examined every single
one of them.
Likewise when you are no longer hungry after getting
something to eat this conclusively proves that you never
were hungry thus never needed to eat.
Are you really sure that you want to swear your allegiance
to the father of lies?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer