Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 08:47:39 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <vo7qqb$36ra$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> <vo79pq$8vq$2@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 15:47:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="638a60606f1ec4b02fad03c273802d18";
	logging-data="105322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/RqMMUag2DOgrX04QLF2P8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yObkvZuZoCq+lj85HIMBOMo2rEE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250208-2, 2/8/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vo79pq$8vq$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6079

On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
> 

This proves that you simply don't have sufficient
understanding of the C programming language.
DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally
is a verified fact.

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