Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 13:05:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 177
Message-ID: <v10kkm$7k7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 20:05:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="06287be8f659702f6b974b7d726ae873";
	logging-data="7815"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Iwd4zH5zleadR6pSTf+fX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lqIofe0hIr/O6o3tJs3R/AwFsOg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de>
Bytes: 7688

On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 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.
> 

It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
specification.

>> 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.
> 

If that was true then four people would not have been able
to correctly answer the question.

>> 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.  

*It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E

> 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.
> 

00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // 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 }


>>>> (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.
> 

No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
*Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
that I am correct.

>> 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.

Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
So Richard was not paying any attention at all.

>  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.

When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
"counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
any attention at all. Try and provide your own
counter-example.

>  My
> understanding of it is not in question.  It is you who appear to lack
> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
> 

We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
set of H/D pair C functions.

Changing the subject it no longer a form of rebuttal
that I can tolerate because of my POD24 diagnosis.

Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor 
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

After we have mutual agreement that (a) is a verified
then we can move on to the next point.

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