XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++
From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com

On 2025-11-21, olcott  wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:
>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>      HHH(DD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>
>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>
>>>>      HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>        - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>            - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>            - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>            - such that DD terminates.
>>>>        - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>        - such that DD terminates.
>>>>
>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>
>>>>      HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>        - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>            - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>               - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>                 - that ...
>>>>                   - that ...
>>>>                     - that ...
>>>>               - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>
>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>
>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>> and following code and execution traces.
>>
>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>
>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>
>>> 
>>>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>     stop running unless aborted then...
>>
>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>
>
> I doubt this. Prove it with a
> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.

Go to Google Groups and search.

> It must be actual agreement with those
> actual words or you are still a liar.

From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
and D that must be given different names.)

I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
anything.

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)