Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:15:15 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5b553c883ae770f924972c3b6d17554f46cbd6ba@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me> <vp24ev$1namo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp2dlj$1p9f5$3@dont-email.me> <vp4dbk$27ck7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me>
 <dc8b1669827ba53dbafff13488e25ba98af0609e@i2pn2.org>
 <vpbhuc$3mfi7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:15:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1245905"; 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: <vpbhuc$3mfi7$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8555
Lines: 127

On 2/21/25 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/20/2025 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:34:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not trying to get away with changing the subject to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some other DD somewhere else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that no instance of DD shown above simulated by any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance of HHH can possibly terminate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that must be aborted to prevent its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know* that it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have your cake and eat it too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts". Instead I am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using in its place "terminates normally". DD correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not imply an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate DD terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate abnormally itself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to prevent the
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-termination of HHH is stipulated to be correctly rejected
>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary
>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language can
>>>>>>>>> see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop
>>>>>>>>> after the "if" statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of itself
>>>>>>>> it sees called does that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
>>>>>>> deficient than I ever imagined.
>>>>>>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH that
>>>>>>> sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation none of them
>>>>>>> do because they all have the exact same code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is changed
>>>>>> to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does not
>>>>>> understand that a modification of a program makes a change. Such a
>>>>>> change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-termination
>>>>>> behaviour has disappeared with this change and only remains in his
>>>>>> dreams. After this change, the simulation would terminate normally
>>>>>> and HHH should no longer abort. But it does, because the code that
>>>>>> detects the 'special condition' has a bug, which makes that it does
>>>>>> not see that the program has been changed into a halting program.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>>>> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>>>>
>>>> It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott ignores
>>>> it when it is addressed.
>>>> What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program DD
>>>> up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to complete the
>>>> simulation, it still fails.
>>>
>>> It fails In the same way that every CAD system will never correctly
>>> represent a geometric circle that has four equal length sides in the
>>> same two dimensional plane.
>> Yes, no program will ever decide the halting status of every program.
>>
> 
> In the exact same way that the square root of
> a basket of rotten eggs is not computable.
> 

Yes, your "HHH" / "DD" pairing is just like a basked of rotten eggs.

>>>> If the logically impossible cannot be done,
>>>> we can admit that HHH's simulation fails to complete the impossible
>>>> task.
>>>> So, why is Olcott trying to fix the logically impossible? He could as
>>>> well try to draw a square circle.
> 
>