Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 14:18:55 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.

Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the
one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this
input.

If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but
aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the simulated
simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting behaviour.

We have only been talking abort normal termination of a C function for
several weeks. Perhaps you have no idea what "normal termination"
means.

It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has been
proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH
describes a program that terminates normally.
That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure of
HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described by
this finite string.

Yup, that's it. peter seems to think a simulator can make things up.

Aborting a program with halting behaviour

We have not been talking about halting for a long time. This term has
proven to be far too vague.
Normal termination of a C function means reaching its "return"
instruction. Zero vagueness.

Don't get hung up on terms. "Aborting a program that returns..."

does not change it into non-halting. It is childish to claim that
when you close your eyes, things do not happen.

You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.

Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.

When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate normally it is flat
out dishonest to say that I am wrong based on another different DD that
has different behavior.

Yes, you are dishonest. DD has its behaviour, period. A simulator can
only reproduce that. What other program, confusingly also named DD,
are you talking about?

--
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.