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: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:21:57 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <voah6m$m3dj$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo79lj$8vq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7qj9$36ra$1@dont-email.me> <vo9tlc$huqu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 16:21:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16";
	logging-data="724403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pt40Gm7mriVl+2cK0VHaw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nR4ypAoohfaQQlWZCmeU576dfL4=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vo9tlc$huqu$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-2, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3864

On 2/9/2025 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-02-08 14:43:53 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> The word "cannot" is not compatible with the meaning of the word "fact".
> That "DD cannot possibly halt" is not a fact. A fact may be that "DD has
> not halted in any test so far".
> 

Cannot possibly halt in the same way that an infinite
loop cannot possibly halt. That you don't understand
the C programming language well enough to see this counts
as no rebuttal what-so-ever.

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