Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 07:57:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <1048j4b$qd4f$4@dont-email.me>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de>
 <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me>
 <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <gPg8Q.1988877$4AM6.189428@fx17.ams4>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
 <F9U8Q.300$ZQ4b.16@fx16.ams4> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me>
 <88bb43aca42ffc4a59d979c4c4f50441ce57b385@i2pn2.org>
 <10464n1$6cra$1@dont-email.me>
 <75c102da6bc85c8677b0a126d3d6f13c5018ae9c@i2pn2.org>
 <10466v2$7e0u$1@dont-email.me> <10480ld$nasn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2319a93962571e26e47ed601564be69";
	logging-data="865423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hjH8gVoC6j0t3UsyD9u2e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9GbBAxltmoB/UMzbfsMX2sGi+5c=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250704-2, 7/4/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <10480ld$nasn$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/4/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-03 15:17:53 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/3/2025 9:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/3/25 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2025 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PO just works off the lie that a correct simulation of the input is
>>>>>>>> different than the direct execution, even though he can't show the
>>>>>>>> instruction actually correctly simulated where they differ, and 
>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>> proves he is lying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The closest he comes is claiming that the simulation of the 
>>>>>>>> "Call HHH"
>>>>>>>> must be different when simulated then when executed, as for "some
>>>>>>>> reason" it must be just because otherwise HHH can't do the 
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, not being able to do something doesn't mean you get to 
>>>>>>>> redefine
>>>>>>>> it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You ar4e just showing you are as stupid as he is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to completion 
>>>>>>> if it can
>>>>>>> determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The most direct way to analyze this is that
>>>>>> HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct
>>>>>> because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and
>>>>>> DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand what the question actually IS 
>>>>> because you have just lied to yourself so much that you lost the 
>>>>> understanding of the queiston.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I can't imagine how Mike does not get this*
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't understand
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue*
>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue*
>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue*
>>>>>
>>>>> Context of your context:
>>>>>
>>>>> A Halt Decider is supposed to decide if the program given to it 
>>>>> (via some correct representation) will halt when run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, "the input" needs to represent a program
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Which, by itself, isn't a valid input, or program. as HHH is 
>>>>> undefined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Each different definition of HHH, gives a different problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "logic" seems to be based on trying to re-define what a 
>>>>> program is, which just makes it a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Programs" must be complete and self-contained in the field of 
>>>>> computability theory, something you don't seem to understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
>>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
>>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
>>>>>> and returns 0. (HHH1 has identical code)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But it CAN'T simulate the above input. as it isn't valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to add the code of HHH to the input to let HHH simulate 
>>>>> "the input" to get anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No I do not. The above paragraph has every detail that is needed.
>>>
>>> Then how do you correctly simulate something you do not have.
>>>
>>> Note, your "description" of HHH is just incorrect, as it is also 
>>> incomplete.
>>>
>>> Simulating a LIE just gives you a lie.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And at that point, you have different inputs for different HHHs, 
>>>>> and possibly different behaviors, which you logic forgets to take 
>>>>> into account, which just breaks it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>> It is because the what I specified does take this
>>>> into account that HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are correct.
>>>
>>> Nope, becausee it violates the DEFINITION of what it means to 
>>> simulate something.
>>
>> *You don't even know what you mean by this*
>> What I mean is the execution trace that is derived
>> within the semantics of the C programming language.
> 
> C lanbuage definition does not specifiy the senatics of the non-standard
> lanugage extension that your HHH and HHH1 use. 


*This is the ONLY specification of HHH that chatbots see*
Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
and returns 0.

> Therefore their execution
> trace cannot be derived withing the semantics of the C probramming
> language. Conseqeuntly, to derive the excution trace of any program
> calling them cannot be derived within the semantics of the C programming
> language.
> 

*All the chatbots figure out*
HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) until
HHH aborts its simulation because it correctly
recognized a non-halting behavior pattern.

  --
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer