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

On 7/15/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-14 14:38:31 +0000, olcott said:
 

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.

 That the input is aborted does not mean that the input must be aborted.

Weasel words. This is an axiom:
Input XXX must be aborted to prevent the non-termination of HHH.
 From the fact that XXX must be aborted we can conclude that XXX must be aborted.
I can't see how you were simply not flat out dishonest.

And if the input specifies that its input is aborted then the behaviour
is not non-terminating.
 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer