Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<63adee8b7d93d6ad4d6940db4efa54da4be643b1@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Overcoming the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem by
 a simple example in C
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 11:37:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <63adee8b7d93d6ad4d6940db4efa54da4be643b1@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <FAsVP.790302$BFJ.344089@fx13.ams4> <1005la7$3akrk$3@dont-email.me>
 <tSsVP.790303$BFJ.255821@fx13.ams4> <1005mms$3akrk$4@dont-email.me>
 <1006o7k$3l6rb$1@dont-email.me> <1007k36$3qb7l$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 15:57:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="617720"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <1007k36$3qb7l$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/16/25 11:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/16/2025 2:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-15 21:35:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2025 4:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 16:11:35 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2025 3:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 May 2025 15:47:16 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I overcome the proof of undecidability of the Halting Problem in 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the code that "does the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns"
>>>>>>> becomes unreachable to DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) to simulate itself again over 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> over until HHH sees this repeating pattern and aborts or both HHH 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> DD crash due to OOM error.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not possible for HHH to simulate DD because we are already 
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> DD when we call HHH:
>>>>>
>>>>> Since HHH does correctly simulate itself simulating DD we have 
>>>>> complete
>>>>> proof that you are wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to write the whole x86utm operating system to make this work.
>>>>
>>>> It is not possible to make this work even by "writing an operating 
>>>> system"
>>>> so whatever you think you are doing it isn't addressing my core 
>>>> point: you
>>>> are NOT *fully* simulating DD by HHH because you are already inside DD
>>>> when you are calling HHH.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Anyone that is intimately familiar with how multi-tasking
>>> operating systems work will understand how HHH could
>>> emulate itself emulating its input.
>>
>> Simulation is not a multi-tasking problem so knowledge of multi-tasking
>> operating systems is not relevant. 
> 
> The simulation of one function in the same program
> by another function in the same program does
> require cooperative multi-tasking switching from
> the simulator to the simulated and back.

No it doesn't, After all the actual programs execution is only doing one 
context.

We never "switch" to the simulated machine, we are supposed to be 
simulating it.

Thus, it is clear you don't understand what you are talking about an are 
just confusing the simultion of a program with the running of it.

Just like you confuse Proofs with the establishment of Truth.

> 
>> (Sometimes parallel processing is
>> needed in order to perform a simulation in short enough time. An exampe
>> is weather prediction, where the prediction must be completed before the
>> predicted weather happens.)
>>
> 
>