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: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Paraphrase of
 Sipser's agreement
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 07:33:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <924e8f5f4cec502561e71614541be8f860ab2c17@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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:33:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="423216"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vr4rb6$bkso$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7061
Lines: 144

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 thus when we give D to an actual correct simulation, 
since you just said your H is going to abort and return non-halting, 
will see D going into the sub-function H which will simulate for a while 
and then return 0 just like H does, and then we see that D will Halt.

Thus, the claim that H correctly determined that its simulated D would 
never stop running unless aborted.

Of course the biggest part of the problem is that in your system, H and 
D aren't actually programs to begin with, so you begin with a category 
error in your logic.

> 
> <Accurate Paraphrase>
>      If emulating termination analyzer H emulates its input
>      finite string D of x86 machine language instructions
>      according to the semantics of the x86 programming language
> 
>      until H correctly determines that this emulated D cannot
>      possibly reach its own "ret" instruction in any finite
>      number of correctly emulated steps then
> 
>      H can abort its emulation of input D and correctly report
>      that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </Accurate Paraphrase>

Nope, just shows your stupidity, since H can't actually determine what 
you claim it determines unless it lies to itself about what everything is.

> 
>> Memorizing quotes from textbooks is useful for practical purposes but
>> if it is too hard for you there are other ways.
>>
> 
> The whole X represents TM X that halts on its input is inaccurate.
> If you did not merely learn-by-rote you would already know this.
> 
> *Input Y to TM Z specifies a TM that halts when directly measured by Z*


Nope, where do you get that from, it seems from your lies. Your whole 
world seems to be based on make-beleive, because you just don't 
understand what truth and reality are.

I guess this is why you think you are god even though you also know you 
can not be god because you can't do what he is supposed to be able to do.

So, you choose to just beleive your own lies and ignore the truth.
>