Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:39:33 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0dc3e1fa80febc4f560a303d2ef614fe424fe31d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
 <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
 <vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
 <voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
 <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me> <vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>
 <vosnea$jd5m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:39:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="349295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vosnea$jd5m$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12582
Lines: 197

On 2/16/25 7:58 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2025 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.feb.2025 om 20:21 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonita Montero
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision about DD's halting behaviour. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods (direct execution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.) show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient understanding of programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees that HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correctly programmed when it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts one cycle
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the simulation would end normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete its simulation, because HHH is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple proof that HHH produces false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negatives. HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unable to simulate itself up to the normal 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 return HHH(main);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH until its normal termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where HHH is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value as soon as it correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts according
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t halt, it is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrections.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next month
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows
>>>>>>>>>>> that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it 
>>>>>>>>>> cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must abort 
>>>>>>>>>> the correct simulation before it sees that the correct 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees
>>>>>>>>> by definition. it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot 
>>>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of 
>>>>>>>> a 2 years old child.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that 
>>>>>>> it specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling 
>>>>>>> HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are 
>>>>>> no substitute for reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does 
>>>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program 
>>>>>> terminates normally.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========