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: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:37:12 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <68dbf6ced1b8b7bcae3e6450ea8a844b63053952@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vo8jr6$7fbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vo9gth$fuct$2@dont-email.me> <vo9o3h$gu6t$2@dont-email.me>
 <voah0r$m3dj$6@dont-email.me> <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
 <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
 <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me> <vocd0e$14a92$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocp7p$16c4e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:37:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3576491"; 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: <vocp7p$16c4e$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11806
Lines: 210

On 2/10/25 6:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 proves that HHH fails to make a correct decision about 
>>>>>>>>>>>> DD's halting behaviour. All other methods (direct execution, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) show that DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>> halts. But HHH fails to see it. Everyone with sufficient 
>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of programming sees that HHH is not correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>> programmed when it aborts one cycle before the simulation 
>>>>>>>>>>>> would end normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You lack the ability to do the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH simulating DD calling HHH(DD) simulating DD...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========