Re: Hypothetical possibilities

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