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

On 2/25/2025 8:56 AM, dbush wrote:

On 2/25/2025 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 2/24/2025 10:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 2/24/2025 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.
>

The actual code of F doesn't matter, as your criteria requires
replacing all of the code of F with an unconditional simulator.
>
So according to you, the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10
simulated by F is defined by the following hypothetical code.
1  int F(uintptr_t p)
2  {
3    /* replace all code with an unconditional simulator */

Too vague i > 10 is missing

 
Not at all.  F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) correctly reports that
no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior to F, as
measured by your criteria of replacing all code of F with an
unconditional simulator.

I AM NEVER RELPLACING ALL THE CODE STF ABOUT THAT

4  }
5
6  int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
7  {
8     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
9  }
10 11 int main()
12 {
13    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
14    return 0;
15 }
>
The trace of this is 13, 3 (simulator code), 8, 3 (simulator code),
8, 3 (simulator code), ...
So clearly no_numbers_greater_than_10 specifies non-halting behavior
to F, as per your criteria