Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

On 7/14/2024 7:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-13 20:15:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Everyone understands that DDD specifies a halting behaviour if HHH(DDD) does,

>
>
*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>
Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
with arithmetic.
>

>
But if HHH does abort

>
int x = 5;
int y = 3;
if (x > y) // *before abort*
{
   printf("x > y is necessarily true\n");
   y = 2 * x;  // *after abort*
}
>
>
>

>
Red Hering, showin your utter stupidity.
>

>
In other words giving up on you was the correct thing
to do. You have proven to be incorrigible when you
consistently deny tautologies.
>

 No, you dont have tautologies,

Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

but LIE based on changing the meaning of words.
 

That is what you have been doing.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer