Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 10:57:12 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vo79pq$8vq$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnv4tf$2a40b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vnvv32$2e9m1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2pd4$31nli$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vo2us8$32kg8$1@dont-email.me>
 <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3cf0$35449$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3t3n$37kcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org>
 <vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6b14$3o0uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org>
 <vo6rhd$3tsq7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 10:57:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fdbf2580a5550da137bd470f6106b60";
	logging-data="9210"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ysHn89Npl9sF2HVPizeFc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZK37ckj6u5q+M48htLv7yr7sHYY=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vo6rhd$3tsq7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5564

Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much higher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language
>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable
>>>>>>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows that 
>>>>>>>>>> isn't the question being asked. The quesiton you NEED to ask 
>>>>>>>>>> is will the program described by the input halt when run?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic is just 
>>>>>>>>>> faulty.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite
>>>>>>>>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this
>>>>>>>>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote
>>>>>>>>> (lack of) understanding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are 
>>>>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and that 
>>>>>>>> mapping is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the program the 
>>>>>>>> string describes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies
>>>>>>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior of 
>>>>>> the progran being run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote
>>>>> as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that.
>>>>
>>>> No, that *IS* the definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite
>>> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings
>>> specify. That this is not dead obvious to everyone here
>>> merely proves that learned-by-rote does not involve any
>>> actual comprehension.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And the behavior the finite string specifies is the behavior of 
>> running the program. 
> 
> That is verifiably factually incorrect.
> The running program has a different execution trace
> than the behavior that DD specifies to HHH.
> 

If so, then it proves the failure of the simulation. The simulation 
aborts too soon on unsound grounds, one cycle before the normal 
termination of the program.