Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:36:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bddf68f22f586b71856518082c6268a78db30d34@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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>
	<cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
	<voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
	<e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
	<vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
	<ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
	<vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
	<vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:36:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4171928"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7856
Lines: 103

Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:12:52 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that.
>>>>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections.
>>>>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute
>>>>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH
>>>>> cannot possible terminate normally.
>>>> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH.
>>>>
>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next month
>>>>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will
>>>>> totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>
>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>> 
>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot
>> properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct
>> simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates
>> normally.
>> 
> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition. it
> maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
> All of the people that think it should map the behavior of a non-input
> have always been wrong.
What is the non-input?
The input is DD, and its behaviour is that it halts.
HHH’s simulation is not correct by definition.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.