Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:35:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <25a1ce93a966107c8ca012d2e26fadd31f37365a@i2pn2.org>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103onmp$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048j4b$qd4f$4@dont-email.me> <104akb7$jhv7$2@dont-email.me>
 <104bi5m$1hqln$9@dont-email.me> <104df2q$231m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <104e329$2852a$4@dont-email.me> <104g09p$2r0ur$1@dont-email.me>
 <104gk29$2uc68$4@dont-email.me> <104ihnn$3eee9$1@dont-email.me>
 <104j97d$3jrpl$2@dont-email.me> <104l9fb$5428$1@dont-email.me>
 <104loa2$7l4q$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:35:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4117867"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <104loa2$7l4q$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 7/9/25 8:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-07-08 14:16:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/8/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-07-07 14:02:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/7/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-07-06 15:00:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-05 15:59:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/5/2025 2:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.jul.2025 om 14:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no non-termination behaviour to detect, because the 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========