Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 17:28:49 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3591ef90c91e8123245edbe48afebb4d23a624b3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnv4tf$2a40b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vnvv32$2e9m1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2pd4$31nli$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vo2us8$32kg8$1@dont-email.me>
 <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3cf0$35449$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3t3n$37kcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org>
 <vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6rhd$3tsq7$1@dont-email.me> <vo79pq$8vq$2@dont-email.me>
 <vo7qqb$36ra$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:28:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3334156"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vo7qqb$36ra$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 2/8/25 9:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't the question being asked. The quesiton you NEED to ask 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is will the program described by the input halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> just faulty.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> It 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are 
>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and that 
>>>>>>>>>> mapping is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the program 
>>>>>>>>>> the string describes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies
>>>>>>>>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior 
>>>>>>>> of the progran being run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote
>>>>>>> as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that *IS* the definition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite
>>>>> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings
>>>>> specify. That this is not dead obvious to everyone here
>>>>> merely proves that learned-by-rote does not involve any
>>>>> actual comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the behavior the finite string specifies is the behavior of 
>>>> running the program. 
>>>
>>> That is verifiably factually incorrect.
>>> The running program has a different execution trace
>>> than the behavior that DD specifies to HHH.
>>>
>>
>> If so, then it proves the failure of the simulation. The simulation 
>> aborts too soon on unsound grounds, one cycle before the normal 
>> termination of the program.
>>
> 
> This proves that you simply don't have sufficient
> understanding of the C programming language.
> DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally
> is a verified fact.
> 

Which since running DD will halt, just proves that none of your HHH can 
be both a correct simulator AND a decider at the same time.

Assuming they are is just a logical error and a lie you base your 
arguemnt on.

Just proving your utter stupidity.