Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:52:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dc8b1669827ba53dbafff13488e25ba98af0609e@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:52:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="914381"; 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: 8158
Lines: 118

Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:34:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>
>> 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.
Yes, no program will ever decide the halting status of every program.

>> If the logically impossible cannot be done,
>> we can admit that HHH's simulation fails to complete the impossible
>> task.
>> So, why is Olcott trying to fix the logically impossible? He could as
>> well try to draw a square circle.
-- 
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.