Re: Hypothetical possibilities

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. The only DDD that we care about are the DDD that are built on HHH that answers, and to answer for such a DDD, HHH will need to abort, and from that, we make the DDD that ends up not needing to abort.
Yes, that sounds contradictory, but that is because they are two different questions. The first is you decision of what HHH to put into the challenge, and with your limited set of options that you have limited yourself to, you need to choose one of the aborting ones, or you will lose by not answering.
*THEN* the input is created for that specific HHH that you have chosen, and now we can actually evaluate the actual NEED to abort but the behavior of an unaborted emulation of THIS PARTICULAR input, which includes the HHH that it was paired with. That emulator can't be put in the location of HHH, but can be put somewhere else in memory, and it will show that DDD will halt, and thus HHH doesn't NEED to abort, even though it DOES.
The problem is you broke your system such that you can't talk about giving a given DDD (which includes the HHH that it calls) to any other HHH the way you talk about it, so your wording is just illogical words that can't mean what they need to mean. To have built DDD properly, it SHOULD have included its own copy of the HHH that it was going to confound, but you system doesn't allow that operation because it seems to not actually be Turing Complete in what it takes as inputs.
The fact you persist after this has been pointed out just shows that either you are just totally mentally incompetent, or you are just a pathological liar that doesn't care that their words are not logical and the "facts" they use are not true.