Path: 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: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:09:53 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vo9nsk$gu6t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo79lj$8vq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7qj9$36ra$1@dont-email.me> <vo8jhj$7fbd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo9gi6$fuct$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 09:09:56 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33";
	logging-data="555229"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19S261a5vwVToRMS0c3ZCYi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fcdPwKOEwuLDBpFFzZFMFzv5bzI=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vo9gi6$fuct$1@dont-email.me>

Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:04 schreef olcott:
> On 2/8/2025 3:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Your comment only proves that you lack sufficient
> understanding of the C programming language.
> 

This is a proof of lack of logical reasoning.

Verified fact 1: DD halts (verified by direct execution and many 
simulators, among which HHH1).
Verified fact 2: HHH aborts the simulation of this halting program and 
reports non-halting.
Simple logical reasoning leads to the conclusion from these two facts: 
HHH fails to do a correct simulation of the halting program.
Explanation: There is a bug in the detection of the 'special condition' 
used to abort the program.