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 17:43:39 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <voalvu$ng5r$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$1@dont-email.me> <vo9nsk$gu6t$1@dont-email.me>
 <voagr0$m3dj$5@dont-email.me> <voaj18$n6n3$1@dont-email.me>
 <voaljl$no4h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 17:43:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33";
	logging-data="770235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197v2BvZoWyiaUoVNy1QuxW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uO1JQ0tI3aoVeRwf/AUmEPknIyU=
In-Reply-To: <voaljl$no4h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott:
> On 2/9/2025 9:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:15 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/9/2025 2:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> 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 
>>>
>>> Fallacy of equivocation error.
>>> (a) All men are mortal
>>> (b) No woman is a man
>>> ∴ No woman is mortal
>>
>> Yes, the claim that DD does not halt is indeed such a fallacy:
>>
>> (a) Direct execution and all simulators show that DD halts.
>> (b) My simulator is different
>>  > ∴ DD does not halt.
>>
>>>
>>> The input to HHH(DD) cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>> Referring to some other DD does not change this verfied fact.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That DD halts is a verified fact. 
> 
> The input to HHH(DD) DOES NOT HALT !!!

It is a verified fact that the finite string describes a halting 
program. Du to a bug, HHH does not see that, because it investigates 
only the first few instructions of DD. HHH is unable to process the call 
from DD to HHH correctly.