Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:10:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b71ec309f45eee3c91164b74f4b4ad5529428f55@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>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me>
 <9e1b767d1ab11da5dc6f6fa164cae8d8deeada2b@i2pn2.org>
 <vr02sg$ad6n$1@dont-email.me>
 <522103270556f743def44da9e3ad865fe1216904@i2pn2.org>
 <vr0b5f$kdnp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 14:10:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="155220"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr0b5f$kdnp$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/14/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/13/2025 10:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/13/25 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/25 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Mar 2025 21:41:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 7:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NOT WHEN IT IS STIPULATED THAT THE BEHAVIOR BEING MEASURED IS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is proven to be different than the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is weird, considering that a simulator should produce the same
>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DECIDERS ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THE SEMANTIC OR SYNTACTIC 
>>>>>>> PROPERTY OF
>>>>>>> THEIR INPUT FINITE STRINGS.
>>>>>> And not if the input called a different simulator that didn't abort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own final state no matter what HHH
>>>>> does.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH1 does reach its
>>>>> own final state.
>>>>
>>>> Which shows that HHH doesn't correctly emulate its input, unless you 
>>>> just lied and gave the two programs different inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Someone that is not a liar could explain exactly
>>> how DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics
>>> of the C language must have the same behavior as
>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics
>>> of the C language.
>>
>> WHy? The above is NOT a program, as to be a program it needs the full 
>> code of HHH included.
>>
> 
> That would be too confusing for this simple thought experiment.
> The behavior of HHH is already fully specified.
> 

No, that is the method you use to hide your deception.

The problem is HHH isnt fully specified, as you have two different 
specifications for it that are contradictory.

You claim it "correctly emulates" (which requires possibly taking 
infinite time) its input, and it also correctly decides (which means it 
always answers in a finite time).

If HHH actually does a correct simulation, then it never returns as (as 
you have shown, the correct simulation of a function that calls that 
simulator on itself) bcomes an infinite recursion. Such an HHH fails to 
decide, and thus does not the HHH that you are claiming to exist.

If HHH does abort its simulation to give an answer, then it did not do a 
correct simulation, and its partial simulation does not prove that the 
input is non-halting, but the correct simulation of giving this WHOLE 
program (that is DDD calling the HHH that you are talking about here) to 
a correct emulator (like HHH1) shows that it will halt.

Your fallacious claims about "what every competent programmer should 
know" or about "what is unreasonable to expect" just show that you just 
don't understand the nature of logic, and while it would be unreasonable 
to expect a decider to emulate its input forever, it is reasonable to 
expect a correct emulator to do so, and a combined function must meet 
ALL the requriements on it, which is what makes that combination impossible.

A PROPER definition of a simulating halt decider would be decider that 
answers based on what a correct simulation would do, and that correct 
simulation will be, by definition, not necessarily be done by the decider.

The flaw in your logic is you insist that giving the input to a 
different processor to look at it, changes the input, but that means 
your "input" isn't a program, as programs are FIXED sets of instructions.

Sorry, all you are doing is proving your utter ignorance of what you 
talk about, and that you have created a massive fraud to try to explain 
your ideas that are just fundamentally wrong, and are too stupid to 
understand the fraud you created,