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

On 2/24/2025 8:04 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 7:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 7:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:06 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 6:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 3:47 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 4:26 PM, olcott wrote:

>

HHH that aborts its simulation and a purely hypothetical
(imaginary never implemented) HHH that never aborts its
simulation.
>

Same thing.  F aborts its (admittedly poor) simulation by
breaking out of a recursive chain, and a hypothetical F that
performs a correct unaborted simulation.

>
The simple fact that the hypothetical HHH would never terminate
conclusively proves that DD specifies behavior that cannot
possibly terminate normally.

>
And the simple fact that the hypothetical F would never terminate
conclusively proves that no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies
behavior that cannot possibly terminate normally.
Agreed?

>
I will not discuss your code.
>

I'll let you respond to yourself here:
On 11/10/2024 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 > That is a dishonest dodge. An honest rebuttal would explain all
 > of the details of how I am incorrect. You can't do that because I
 > am correct.
>

Your code is not isomorphic to my code thus an irrelevant change of
subject away from the point.
>

That is counter-factual.
According to you, the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HHH is
defined by this code:
 
int HHH(ptr P)
{
     /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */
}
 

I already corrected you on this misunderstanding. HHH has two versions
the real one and the imaginary on that never aborts the simulation of
its input.