Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/24 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 2:36 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 21:09 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.
>
(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.
>
This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
abort the simulation of its input.

>
And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt of its own.

>
So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
will stop running?
>

>
No, you try to get away with saying that a HHH that is coded to abort and halt, will never stop running, only because you are dreaming of *another* HHH that does not abort.
>

>
*You know that I didn't say anything like that*
>
Unless I refer to the infinite set of every possible
HHH my reviewers try to get away with saying that I am
referring to the wrong HHH.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
possibly reach its own return instruction.
>
>

>
And the problem you ignore is that each HHH is given the DDD that calls itself, and not some other HHH, and thus you can't look at the other

 Yet again trying to get away with saying that when every element
of an infinite set cannot reach its return instruction that some
of these elements still reach their return instruction.
 

Because you are using the wrong definitions. The thing that never gets to the return instruciton is the PARTIAL emulation by HHH.
But the question being asked to a Halt Decider is does the PROGRAM represented by the input get there, and *IT* does.

My God have mercy on your soul (if you have a soul).
 

I know where my ticket to eternity is. You may think you have an idea, but I thihk you have been lying to youreself, just as you have been lying with all your words.
I know what "My God" has said, and I don't care what "YOUR GOD" says, as I try not to listen to the words of your God, Satan the deciver (who you show is your god as you follow his methods of using deciet).
Remember, "God" defines the criteria, where "God" is the creator of the thing. In Computation Theory, that "god" is the people who DEFINED the field, and they have defined the meaningi of halting and what a halt decider is suppose to answer about, so trying to change that is just LYING, and you know where LIARS go.
Just like you don't get to pick and choose what words of the Scriptures you are going to believe. If they are Gods words, then ALL of them are, or he isn't a "big" enough God to worry about.