Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:18:11 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <222aa77c3899e24c869b0abea032c02730672a73@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 00:18:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3191980"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me>

On 2/7/25 6:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD
> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
> "if" statement.
> 

But that isn't the Halting Question, and HHH doesn't correctly simulate 
DD and return an answer, so you claim is based on two LIES.


> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive
> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH. This
> makes HHH necessarily correct to reject its input as
> non-halting.


Nope, the "finite string DD" is just an invalid program representation, 
as it isn't the representation of a complete program.

And thus your claim is based on another lie.


> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> has fully operational HHH and DD
> 
> The halting problem has always been a mathematical mapping
> from finite strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend
> this shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote
> (lack of) understanding.
> 

And the string needs to be the representation of a FULL PROGRAM.

And the mapping is whether to whether or not said program will halt when 
run.

So, all you are doing is proving you don't know what you talk about, and 
are just a pathological lying idiot.

YOU are the one with a lack of understanding, because you have a 
never-learned-so-ignorant understanding of the topic.

You don't seem to understand that logic system have something call RULES 
and DEFINITIONS, and you ignore them at your peril, because doing so 
makes your logic just a LIE.