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

On 2/28/25 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
>

The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact that
HHH emulates this DD.

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.
>

>

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.

>
Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach its return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even more vague.
>

>
>

 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.
It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close your eyes.
>

>
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.
>

>
That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't understand the meaning of the words you are using.
>

>
DD emulated by HHH explicitly excludes directly executed DD
that has a different execution trace.

>
Then you don't define "Correct emulation" correctly.
>
What step, actually correctly emulated, differed between the "correct emulation" done by HHH, and the direct execution of DD.
>

>
It has always been ridiculously stupid for anyone
to expect HHH to report on any behavior besides
the behavior that its finite string input specifies.
>
>

>
But the behivor that its finite string input specifies, is, by the definition of the problem, the behavior of the direct execution of the program the string represents. The problem we run into is the language of the problem doesn't allow us to specify in the program or on the tape a "reference" to who is simulating us, since that is a violation of the model of a program being able to be directly run, and that inputs must be fixed strings.
>
That you don't follow definitions, is just the final proof that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
>
It seems your logic is built on the fantasy that you can define things in what every crazy method you want, ignoring the requirements.
>
Perhaps what you are actually afraid of is the fact that LIFE has a set of rules, and violation of them will have consequences, and you have been breaking them all you life, so you know the consequences, so you are trying to convince yourself that rules don't actually exist, and thus there are no consequences for breaking them. That is why you believe in the Truth Fairy that can make true whatever you wish for, even if it isn't.
>
Sorry, you are must a stupd pathological lying idiot, living in the insanity of a make believe world.

 see this post
DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code
 

Your repeated errors are pointed out there too.
Until you actual show where people are wrong in there pointing out errors to your logic, you are just proving that you don't understand what you are talking about, and actually have no basis for your claims.
The fact that your arguments are based on Strawmen and the action of a Truth Fairy to make statements true just shows your reckless disregard for the truth.