Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Paraphrase of
 Sipser's agreement
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 18:50:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57a643b8e00ffe9f7ec574036fd1c42c8dd08990@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqpv2u$23vhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <Ny-dnRlMHcVpA036nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqrjrn$2h4l2$1@dont-email.me>
 <nESdnUfJxdhoTkz6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqsl7c$2ok91$1@dont-email.me>
 <f7b6995ae3e79db00fa5070d9be8126b7ea5ae78@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt99l$2spcd$5@dont-email.me> <vqu84v$363tm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqvgpn$3s1qt$4@dont-email.me> <vr0rcu$10780$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr1f32$1ev1a$4@dont-email.me> <vr3jpq$3abnf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4rb6$bkso$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e8f5f4cec502561e71614541be8f860ab2c17@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7548$26c3n$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:50:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="492667"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr7548$26c3n$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6527
Lines: 128

On 3/16/25 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/16/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/25 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-14 14:39:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/14/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 20:56:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 00:36:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When HHH correctly emulates N steps of the
>>>>>>>>> above functions none of them can possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> their own "return" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, assuming HHH is a decider, Infinite_Loop and 
>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion
>>>>>>>> specify a non-terminating behaviour, DDD specifies a terminating 
>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the sequence of machine language
>>>>>>> instructions of DDD emulated by HHH such that DDD
>>>>>>> reaches its machine address 00002183?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant off-topic distraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving that you don't have a clue that Rice's Theorem
>>>>> is anchored in the behavior that its finite string input
>>>>> specifies. The depth of your knowledge is memorizing
>>>>> quotes from textbooks.
>>>>
>>>> Another irrelevant off-topic distraction, this time involving
>>>> a false claim.
>>>>
>>>> One can be a competent C programmer without knowing anyting about 
>>>> Rice's
>>>> Theorem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> YES.
>>>
>>>> Rice's Theorem is about semantic properties in general, not just 
>>>> behaviours.
>>>> The unsolvability of the halting problem is just a special case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A property about Turing machines can be represented as the language 
>>> of all Turing machines, encoded as strings, that satisfy that property.
>>> http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/Rice.html
>>>
>>> Does THE INPUT TO simulating termination analyzer
>>> HHH encode a C function that reaches its "return"
>>> instruction [WHEN SIMULATED BY HHH] (The definition
>>> of simulating termination analyzer) ???
>>
>> Then your idea of a "simulating termination analyzer" isn't what 
>> anyone else would define one to be, and th
>>
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>> Right, when it determines that the CORRECT SIMULATION of the program 
>> given to it.
>>
>> That means D is a program, and thus is includes all its code, 
>> including the code for H, and 
> 
> The semantics of the C/x86 programming languages
> specify what a correct simulation/emulation is.

Right, and that exactly matches the direct execution of the code, and 
requires that all the code used is provided.

> 
> Thus DD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own "return"/"ret" instruction
> and terminate normally.
> 

And if HHH is defined to do a correct emulation of its input, it will 
never return an answer.

And HHH that aborts its emulation, has, BY DEFINITION, not done a 
correct emulation of the input, and hasn't established what a correct 
emulation would be.

By the definition of DD, and HHH(DD) that aborts and returns 0, creates 
a DD that has a correct emulation that halts.

Note, DD will call the exact same version of HHH that is claimed to be 
correctly deciding it, so no HHH(DD) can be correct returning 0. PERIOD. 
by the definition you just referenced.

Sorry, you are just stuck with the fact that the ACTUAL definitions of 
the terms you try to use prove you wrong, because you logic is just 
based on errors and lies.