Re: Hypothetical possibilities

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ca philosophy 
Sujet : Re: Hypothetical possibilities
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy
Date : 20. Jul 2024, 23:10:47
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <a69b1a19e5732284c31315578d1704e438b0fdcf@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/20/24 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
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?
>
>
It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not need to.
 No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly
exist aborts its simulation.
But every HHH that is a decider does.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
 
No, you show that the EMULATION BY HHH never reaches that point, not that DDD doesn't reach that point.
You miss the fact that EVERY DDD built on an HHH that aborts is emulation and returns to its caller makes a DDD that does reach its own return instruction, though after that HHH has aborted it emulation, so the HHH never gets that knowledge.
You are just ignorant of the differnce between the TRUTH of the program's behavior from the limited KNOWLEDGE gotten from the PARTIAL EMULAITON.
It also seems you just don't understnd what a program actualy is as you LIE about what needs to be considered the representation of DDD to give to HHH.
You are just proving that you are nothing but an ignorant pathological lying idiot.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
20 Jul 24 * Hypothetical possibilities17olcott
20 Jul 24 +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
20 Jul 24 i `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities13Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities12olcott
20 Jul 24   +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities8Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24   i+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities6olcott
20 Jul 24   ii+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities4Richard Damon
20 Jul 24   iii`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3olcott
20 Jul 24   iii +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24   iii `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24   ii`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24   i`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Alan Mackenzie
20 Jul 24   `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3Richard Damon
20 Jul 24    `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
20 Jul 24     `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal