Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!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: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:15:41 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bf2ebcb7fa687306a75c0a85d0fd2dc959898d92@i2pn2.org>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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> <vocqjl$16qj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me> <vodh9d$1ar1l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vodo13$1ccae$1@dont-email.me>
 <f4a1a9c106d4490f0ede6900ed3327ea4110624a@i2pn2.org>
 <vofne1$1qh2r$1@dont-email.me> <vofsqb$1q3mf$2@dont-email.me>
 <voftfg$1rkco$2@dont-email.me> <vofupe$1q3mf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vojrgb$2oikq$2@dont-email.me> <vokiuo$2s1tr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1jj$34osr$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 03:15:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4134094"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vom1jj$34osr$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie normally
>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This main is a program that includes all functions called 
>>>>>>>>>> directly and
>>>>>>>>>> indirectly, including HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not 
>>>>>>>> simulate that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The directly executed main() is not the same instance of
>>>>>>> main() that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting
>>>>>>> the simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything
>>>>>>> else aborting the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort.
>>>>>
>>>>> That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least one
>>>>> more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation.
>>>> HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem.
>>>
>>> If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater
>>> context.
>>
>> Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort, 
> 
> This is simply beyond your skill level.
> Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first
> one aborts none of them do.
> 
> 

But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be.

And thus, the one that DD calls aborts.

Remember, the problem statement for a Halt Decider says NOTHING about a 
need for the decider to simulate, and the results of any simulation it 
does is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is what the actual 
program the input represents does.

Since the program you talk about as the input halts, that is the only 
right answer.

The fact that you input doesn't fully specify that program, just means 
you have proved yourself too stupid to understand the problem.

What you try to give as the input, isn't the representation of an actual 
program, as it is missing information, and that you don't understand 
that just proves your stupidity.