Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 12:52:19 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <v1vc8j$3jmr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me> <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me> <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me> <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me> <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me> <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me> <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1ln3c$vfh$1@news.muc.de> <v1s6e6$397iq$2@dont-email.me> <v1slmi$3cjtp$1@dont-email.me> <v1t8tt$3gu9t$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 11:52:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1561cf947d67a0ca7b653e1332cd608a";
	logging-data="118491"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QD9h2Irvhh5iToxPETBg7"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sYlGVVZVxP4PJyHAgwFclumjA5k=
Bytes: 3478

On 2024-05-13 14:43:09 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/13/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 04:54:30 +0000, immibis said:
>> 
>>> On 10/05/24 19:55, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>> 
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>> 
>>>> I've tried out your much spammed code on GCC (see below).  It is clear
>>>> you have never built or run this code, which ironically can't reach Line
>>>> 06.  It can't even reach line 00.
>>>> 
>>>>> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
>>>>> of D simulated by H:
>>>> 
>>>>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> *That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the detailed*
>>>>> *steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably liars*
>>>> 
>>>> You have said, or at least implied that your code fragment is runnable.
>>>> I think you are the liar, here.
>>>> 
>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> .  These are the diagnostics generated by GCC:
>>>> 
>>> And the halting problem is about Turing machines, anyway.
>> 
>> Not necessarily. The same question can be asked about different machines.
>> The restriction to Turing machines is just one way to ensure that the
>> problem is well defined.
>> 
> 
> Well put. All computable functions even if written in C.

You still must ensure that the problem is well defined. With C there is
the problem that conforming C programs often fail to be strictly conforming.
If a program is not strictly conforming it may be interpreted as halting
by some implementation and non-halting or incorrect by another.

-- 
Mikko