Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<b27e72312142de89d28f7a5273086409b9fc60f6@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 18:58:30 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <b27e72312142de89d28f7a5273086409b9fc60f6@i2pn2.org> References: <vnumf8$24cq0$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> <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org> <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me> <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org> <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me> <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org> <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@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 23:58:30 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3655999"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6936 Lines: 94 On 2/10/25 4:38 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb 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: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation, because HHH is unable to simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this simple >>>>>>>>>>>> proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is unable to >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself up to the normal termination. >>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts. >>>>>>>>>> HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in >>>>>>>>>> int main() { >>>>>>>>>> return HHH(main); >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> but he denies it. >>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, which he >>>>>>>>>> tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words. >>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be correctly >>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH until its normal termination. >>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself >>>>>>>> correctly. >>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where HHH is >>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the correct >>>>>> value. >>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct value >>>>> as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot possibly >>>>> terminate normally. >>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according to >>>> spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it can’t >>>> report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH doesn’t halt, it >>>> is not a decider. >> RSVP >> >>>>>>> Here is the code point out the (nonexistent) error: >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c#L502 >>>> Look at it. >>> That is not an error. >>> It is a verified fact that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly >>> terminate normally. The line you referred to does not change that >>> verified fact. > >> You didn’t look at it. >> > > I did look at it and was pleased that you noticed the significance > of this line-of-code. None-the-less it does not and cannot possibly > alter the truism that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate > normally. > N o, you have FAILED to look at and correct the error that DISQUALIFIES HHH from being a decider, in part because to do so will fundamentally break parts of your needed operation of the program. This just shows that you are nothing but a FRAUD, and too stupid to understand your stupidity.