Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>
I can't ever get to the point of the computer science because
reviewers disagree with these basic facts.

No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere
science you claim to be doing.

We never get anywhere near the computer science because people disagree
with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.

WITH WHAT

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

Which is NOT a program

I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is dishonest to
change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.

This is on topic. That function doesn't compile, since it's missing the
code of HHH.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Right, and to statisfy this, since the only simulation that is
"Correct"
for the determining of the behavior of a program is a COMPLETE
behaivior

 
UNTIL MEANS LIMITED.
IT DOES NOT MEAN YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF "COMPLETE"
YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT AN INFINITE EXECUTION CANNOT BE COMPLETE.
YOU AND OTHERS ALWAYS USE THE TERM "COMPLETE" INCORRECTLY

A complete simulation of something infinite doesn't halt, duh.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.