Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting ---
 EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:21:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <103l67e$3ul4b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me>
 <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h07f$2q86f$3@dont-email.me> <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 06:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5e8bf149ad22c63d77dbd8bd904cd54";
	logging-data="4150411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BujGMdnR4bICBuLcdtan3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MmKf41rhkG4BU41iKq/ZcLpd5MY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250626-6, 6/26/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-25 14:14:07 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/25/2025 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-24 14:06:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/24/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 23.jun.2025 om 16:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 22.jun.2025 om 21:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2025 11:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2025 om 16:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ???
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof that square circles exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would seem to make you a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how this is not correct:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though the end is only one cycle further from the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point where it gave up the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and halt, the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating HHH, so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH is only one cycle away from the same point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> All CS graduates would understand this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That you do not understand what I write makes it difficult 
>>>>>>>>>>> for you to learn from your errors.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not that difficult. Try again and pay full attention to 
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort 
>>>>>>>>>>> and halt,
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
>>>>>>>>>>> so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is 
>>>>>>>>>>> only one cycle away from the same point.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes this is factual.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *This is only ordinary computer programming with*
>>>>>>>>>> *no theory of computation computer science required*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator
>>>>>>>>>> no matter how deep the recursive simulations go. This means
>>>>>>>>>> that the outermost directly executed HHH reaches its abort
>>>>>>>>>> criteria first.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it fails to see that the simulated HHH would reach exactly 
>>>>>>>>> the same abort criteria one cycle later.
>>>>>>>>> In this way, it misses the fact that it is simulating an HHH 
>>>>>>>>> that would abort and halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    printf("Fred Zwarts can't understand this is never reached\n");
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another claim without any evidence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Olcott does not understand that his HHH does not see an infinite 
>>>>>>> loop.
>>>>>>> It aborts and halt, so the recursion is finite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't even use the term recursion correctly.
>>>>>> Infinite loops have nothing to do with recursion.
>>>>>
>>>>> And infinite loops have nothing to do with a simulator simulating 
>>>>> itself. Therefore, talking about infinite loops is changing the 
>>>>> subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike understands that HHH could recognize an infinite
>>>>>> loop correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The process in which a function calls itself directly
>>>>>>     or indirectly is called recursion and the corresponding
>>>>>>     function is called a recursive function.
>>>>>> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-recursion-2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lines 987 to 992 is where infinite loops are recognized
>>>>>> Lines 996 to 1005 is where infinite recursion is recognized
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH correctly emulates the x86 machine code of its
>>>>>> input until one of those two patterns is matched.
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is a bug in the code that tries to recognise an infinite 
>>>>> recursion.
>>>>
>>>> There is no bug. Quit your defamation.
>>>>
>>>>> It forgets to count the conditional branch instructions when 
>>>>> simulating the simulator.
>>>>
>>>> *It does not forget them. They are irrelevant*
>>>>
>>>> The question being asked is this:
>>>> Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer
>>>> HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement
>>>> final halt state?
>>>
>>> Why would anyone ask that question or care about the answer?
>>
>> In computer science the only measure of halting
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========