Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN --- Saving Democracy

On 2/24/2025 9:03 AM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 9:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 7:11 AM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2025 11:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/23/2025 10:45 PM, dbush wrote:

The above code proves that there's no way for
no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly simulated by F to reach its
own "return" instruction.
Therefore F would be correct to report that
no_numbers_greater_than_10 is non-halting.
Agreed?
>

It looks like you have always been wrong about your code not
terminating. It looks like you never understood what you have been
talking  about.
>

I'll let you respond to yourself on this point:
On 11/10/2024 10:11 AM, olcott wrote:
 > If you had a basis in reasoning to show that I was wrong on this
 > specific point you could provide it. You have no basis in
 > reasoning on this specific point all you have is presumption.
>

You say that you code stops after ten recursions and also say that it
never stops.
>

int F(uintptr_t p)
{
    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */

No, not this at all. That would be nothing like HHH or HHH with its
abort code disabled.

}
int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
{
    return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
}
int main()
{
    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
    return 0;
}
Try and show how the above code (i.e. no_numbers_greater_than_10
correctly simulated by F) can possibly reach the final "return"
instruction of no_numbers_greater_than_10
F would be correct to report the above as non-halting