Path: ...!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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:49:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vo8jhj$7fbd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo79lj$8vq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7qj9$36ra$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 22:49:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fdbf2580a5550da137bd470f6106b60";
	logging-data="245101"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fzXWStGnTcRtxvSTZJTAU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4L6n7pI/+hP0q+O4jKv1JiuQDS8=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vo7qj9$36ra$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3249

Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott:
> On 2/8/2025 3:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 00:13 schreef olcott:
>>> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD
>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>> "if" statement.
>>
>> Yes, it demonstrates the incapability of HHH to correctly determine 
>> the halting behaviour of DD
>>
>>>
>>> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive
>>> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH. This
>>> makes HHH necessarily correct to reject its input as
>>> non-halting.
>>
>> The finite string defines one behaviour. This finite string, when 
>> given to an X86 processor shows halting behaviour. This finite 
>> string,when given to a world class simulator, shows halting behaviour. 
>> Only HHH fails to see this proven halting behaviour. So it proves the 
>> failure of HHH.
>> HHH aborts the simulation on unsound grounds one cycle before the 
>> simulation would terminate normally.
>>
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>> has fully operational HHH and DD
>>>
>>> The halting problem has always been a mathematical mapping
>>> from finite strings to behaviors. 
>>
>> Yes. And the behaviour of this finite string has been proven to show 
>> halting behaviour. Only Olcott's HHH fails to see it.
>> His misunderstanding is that he thinks that the behaviour defined by 
>> the finite string depends on the simulator.
> 
> When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation it is a
> verified fact that DD cannot possibly halt.

Which proves the failure of HHH. It does not reach the end of a halting 
program. All other methods show that DD halts.