Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article 
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:40:31 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:40:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88fe018fd7c65de78f82e53bbf822309";
	logging-data="4132623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18y5wODmpozpdP99Iz1CBfX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nqk1W65FbH9esjYZ9cYf6ZSb6vg=
In-Reply-To: <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2717

Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
> On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> We prove that the simulation is correct.
>>> Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
>>> reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>>>
>>> Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
>>> string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>> Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
>> not interesting.
>>
>> The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
>> is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>>
>> Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>> non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.

Contradiction in terminus.
A correct simulation is not possible. The simulation failes to reach the 
final halt state.

> 
> It is true that anyone that cannot understand this is true
> has insufficient technical competence.

In particular when he thinks that a simulation that fails to reach the 
final halt status of a halting program is correct.