Path: ...!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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:14:08 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cbd36c413ae64eda332af99a78df166b6be6f929@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me>
 <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me> <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me>
 <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me> <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me> <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me>
 <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me> <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me>
 <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me> <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me>
 <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me> <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me> <vp24ev$1namo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp2dlj$1p9f5$3@dont-email.me> <vp4dbk$27ck7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:14:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="869904"; 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: <vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9250
Lines: 177

On 2/19/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *know* that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your cake 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and eat it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally".
>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does 
>>>>>>>>>>> not imply
>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD
>>>>>>>>>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>> abnormally
>>>>>>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not 
>>>>>>>>>>> need to be
>>>>>>>>>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>   HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to
>>>>>>>>>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated
>>>>>>>>>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly 
>>>>>>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language
>>>>>>> can see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop
>>>>>>> after the "if" statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of 
>>>>>> itself it sees called does that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
>>>>> deficient than I ever imagined.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH
>>>>> that sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation
>>>>> none of them do because they all have the exact same code.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is 
>>>> changed to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does not 
>>>> understand that a modification of a program makes a change. Such a 
>>>> change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-termination 
>>>> behaviour has disappeared with this change and only remains in his 
>>>> dreams. After this change, the simulation would terminate normally 
>>>> and HHH should no longer abort. But it does, because the code that 
>>>> detects the 'special condition' has a bug, which makes that it does 
>>>> not see that the program has been changed into a halting program.
>>>
>>>
>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>>
>>> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>> It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott 
>> ignores it when it is addressed.
>>
>> What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program 
>> DD up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to complete 
>> the simulation, it still fails. 
> 
> It fails In the same way that every CAD system
> will never correctly represent a geometric circle that has
> four equal length sides in the same two dimensional plane.
> 

But no one asks for that, because it is meaningless.

Asking if a program will halt is not meaningless.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========