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

On 2/24/25 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 8:18 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:

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.
>
>
>

>
>
And F has two versions, a real one and the imaginary one that never aborts the simulation of its input.

>
You already said that F halts after ten invocations
and and that F does not halt.
>

>
Changing the subject to the direct execution of no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.
>
The subject is the correct simulation of no_numbers_greater_than_10  by F.

 Show me all of the code with the > 10
conditional branch and line numbers and
a line number by line number execution
trace or I will write you off as playing head games.
 In a couple of weeks I start cancer treatment
that has a 7% chance of killing me very quickly.
 

Why don't you do the same for your HHH?
Where is the claimed diffference in the trace HHH sees vs HHH1 or the direct execution?
HHH sees exactly the same trace (up to the point that HHH fails to be a pure function, invalidating the resutls) as HHH1 and the direct execution, showing that the context of the call doesn't make the difference you claim.
Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a pathologically lying hypocrite.