Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:29:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me>   <v0oce3$1q3aq$4@dont-email.me> <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de> <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me> <v0oh7g$1o3b$3@news.muc.de> <v0olhv$1sgeo$1@dont-email.me> <v0oobd$1o3b$4@news.muc.de> <v0or07$1tmga$1@dont-email.me> <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me> <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me> <v0r78v$hka$3@news.muc.de> <v0rd16$2k1bi$1@dont-email.me> <v0t3uj$1iuj$2@news.muc.de> <v0tneg$37lgj$5@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 09:29:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="65841"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 5375
Lines: 109

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>> [ .... ]

>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>> final state.

>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>> can't.

>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>> ....

>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.

>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>> halting.

>>>> Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function

>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }

>> Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
>> mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.

> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.

I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
to L6 and terminate.

> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:

It's not a matter of "understanding".  It's you that lacks understanding,
not everybody else.

> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>> Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the program is
>> repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate that it will never reach the
>> final "ret" - indeed, it won't even get to the infinite loop
>> identified above.

Thanks for the citation.  But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
agreeing to.  You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
post.

>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>> aborts its simulation or not.

>> That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and
>> when,

> Two experts in the C programming language and two people with masters
> degrees in computer science.

Their names, please.  And the dates and places of their "verifications",
too.

> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.

I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet.  It's
clear to me your (a) is at best problematic.  Richard has pointed out
some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.  Again, it's
unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.

> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.

There you go again.  Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.  My
understanding of it is not in question.  It is you who appear to lack
sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.

> -- 
> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).