On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I >>>>>>> will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that >>>>>>>>>> paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false I >>>>>>> will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about that >>>>>>>>>> paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
The key verified fact that makes all such counter-arguments moot
is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
The input DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly terminate normally
HHH correctly reports this. No one else has ever gotten this
far with the halting problem ever before.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
The key verified fact that makes all such counter-arguments moot
is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
The input DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly terminate normally
HHH correctly reports this. No one else has ever gotten this
far with the halting problem ever before.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Reporting that HHH is unable to simulate the halting program up to the
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
The key verified fact that makes all such counter-arguments moot
is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Not even the variable Root in line 502 of Halt7.c?
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input could
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is >>>>>>>>> false I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
truism.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some
knowledge that is not obvious.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates
normally.
toggles termination?
possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically >>>> toggles termination?
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent >>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is >>>>>>>>>>> false
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
They needn't determine whether the termination is normal. A termination
analyzer may also report whatever it can determine from the analysis.
All of which is of course irrelevant to the question whether the claim
on the subject line is true.
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically >>>> toggles termination?
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent >>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false >>>>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism. >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading >>>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it >>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
subsequent
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally. >>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run
forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent >>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally. >>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically >>>>>> toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever. >>>
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
On 2/20/2025 4:00 AM, joes wrote:1059
Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:08:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c You are not even
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Not even the variable Root in line 502 of Halt7.c?
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input could
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is >>>>>>>>>>> false I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth >>>>>>>>>>>>> can possibly show otherwise.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> line contains a false claim.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about that paper.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that is not obvious.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
subsequent instances of the exact same sequence of recursive
invocations.
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>> normally.
basically toggles termination?
possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
in the correct function.
On 2/20/2025 4:00 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:08:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Not even the variable Root in line 502 of Halt7.c?
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input could
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically >>>> toggles termination?
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent >>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is >>>>>>>>>>> false I will point out the error.
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a >>>>>>>>>>>> truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that is not obvious.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally
misleading people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>> normally.
possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
You are not even in the correct function.
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:The statement "unless HHH aborts..." is void, because HH does abort.
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
I am not talking about one statement.If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless the CIt would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itselfThis would define simulating termination analyzers as impossibleWrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can runHow interesting. Might this be due to a global variable thatTermination analyzers determine whether or not their input could >>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
basically toggles termination?
forever.
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
so we can say that the program could run forever.
function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD this DD C
function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of
DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is
false.
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is false
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
subsequent
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second
recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally >>>>>>>>> misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates
normally.
basically
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run
forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so >>>> we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/
Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If
you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement. I am referring to
all of the code and all of code this this code refers to
in every other file.
If you want to refer to one statement every software engineer
knows this means FILENAME : LINE NUMBER.
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent >>>>>>>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive >>>>>>>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHHThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
Since when DD run, it halts,
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally. >>>>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically >>>>>>>> toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever. >>>>>
because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so >>>> we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean >> any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that >>>>>>>>>> basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>> subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a truism.On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second >>>>>>>>>>> recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally >>>>>>>>>>> misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>>>>>>>> normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run >>>>>>>> forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program
itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If
you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/
Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If
you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:toggles termination?
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:Yes, please shut up.
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally. >>>>>>>>>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input
could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this.
Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so >>>>>> we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean >> any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can >>>>>>>>>> run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that >>>>>>>>>>>> basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second >>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:When you try to show the steps attempting to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a truism.On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>> normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>
itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD.
If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE." >>>>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If
you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:LOLOLOL that is not "the exact same HHH"
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.I am not talking about one statement.OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless the >>>>>>> C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD this DD >>>>>>> C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.It would be aborted by external causes but not by the programTermination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run >>>>>>>>>> forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>
itself so we can say that the program could run forever.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is
simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then
that statement is false.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT
TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is
simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then
that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the one single change that it
never aborts its input then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:How many changes are allowed before HHH is no longer 'the exact same HHH'?
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can >>>>>>>>>> run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that >>>>>>>>>>>> basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second >>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:When you try to show the steps attempting to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a truism.On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as >>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequent
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>> normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>
itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD.
If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE." >>>>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If
you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
that paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE." >>>>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
On 2/25/2025 2:09 AM, joes wrote:When we imagine the exact same peter with the one single change that he
Am Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:22:23 -0600 schrieb olcott:DAMNED WEASEL WORDS
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:LOLOLOL that is not "the exact same HHH"
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.I am not talking about one statement.OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point. Unless >>>>>>>>> the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C function DD >>>>>>>>> this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can >>>>>>>>>>>> run forever.
This would define simulating termination analyzers as
impossible because every input that would otherwise run
forever is aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program >>>>>>>>>> itself so we can say that the program could run forever.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is >>>>>>>> simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then >>>>>>>> that statement is false.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT
TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c that statement is void: that HHH does abort is
simulation of DD. If you mean any function HHH allowed by OP then
that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the one single change that it
never aborts its input then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
X WITH X == X WITH Y
A REBUTTAL OF THIS SAYING X WITH Y != X WITHOUT Y IS MERE DECEPTION.
On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program >>>>>>>>>> itself so
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can >>>>>>>>>>>> run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that basicallyAm Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocations.
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCEOn 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When you try to show the steps attempting to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a truism.It is a truism and not one person on the face of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth canthat paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as subsequent
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>>>
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. >>>>>>>> If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT
TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD.
If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
DD does not terminate normally either way so it
is stupid to need to know which one.
On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/25/25 4:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that basicallyAm Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invocations.
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCEWe havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,When you try to show the steps attempting to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is falseThe fact that the claim on subject line is false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a truism.It is a truism and not one person on the face >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Earth canthat paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference to thattalking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
article before or when HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I have been
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as subsequent
It is the same with recursive simulations. When the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second recursive
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as >>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible
because every input that would otherwise run forever is >>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
It would be aborted by external causes but not by the
program itself so
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C >>>>>>>>>>> function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/ >>>>>>>>>> blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of >>>>>>>>>> DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false. >>>>>>>>>>
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its >>>>>>>> simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT
TERMINATE."
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ >>>>>>>> master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. >>>>>>>> If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and >>>>>> does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
DD does not terminate normally either way so it
is stupid to need to know which one.
OF course DD terminates normally if HHH aborts its simulation.
Only if you are clueless about both c and x86, otherwise
it is dead obvious that the entire recursive chain totally
stops and zero elements of the recursive chain can possibly
reach their "ret" or "return" instruction as soon as the
outermost instance is aborted.
Since this is ordinary software engineering and requires zero
knowledge of computer science that proves that anyone disagreeing
is simply clueless.
On 2/25/2025 8:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-24 23:22:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/24/2025 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-23 17:34:21 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/23/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-22 16:06:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/22/2025 2:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-21 22:39:01 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/21/2025 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-02-20 13:02:28 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/20/2025 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:It would be aborted by external causes but not by the program itself so
On 2025-02-20 04:08:05 +0000, olcott said:
On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:Wrong. Termination analyzers deremine whether a program can run forever.
Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basicallyAm Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
Yes, please shut up.Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCEOn 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth canthat paper.Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to thatThat paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
article before or when HHH
talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
contains a false claim.
possibly show otherwise.
In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
that is not obvious.
I will point out the error.
But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
toggles termination?
Termination analyzers determine whether or not their input >>>>>>>>>>>>> could possibly terminate normally. Nothing can toggle this. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This would define simulating termination analyzers as impossible >>>>>>>>>>> because every input that would otherwise run forever is aborted. >>>>>>>>>>
we can say that the program could run forever.
OK great we finally got mutual agreement on one point.
Unless the C function HHH aborts its simulation of the C
function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE.
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
I am not talking about one statement.
I am, about one you made: "Unless the C function HHH aborts its
simulation of the C function DD this DD C function DOES NOT TERMINATE." >>>>>>
If you mean the HHH on https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/ master/ Halt7.c
that statement is void: that HHH does abort is simulation of DD. If you mean
any function HHH allowed by OP then that statement is false.
Do you understand the notion of hypothetical possibilities?
It really seems that you do not.
Yes, I understand that a simulator that both abort its simulation and
does not abort is not a hypothetical possibility.
HHH aborts its emulation of DD.
When we imagine the exact same HHH with the
one single change that it never aborts its input
then we can see that this HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
That's right. But OP did not specify which HHH is called by DD.
DD does not terminate normally either way so it
is stupid to need to know which one.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:58:30 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,631 |