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,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Followup-To: comp.theory
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 11:00:28 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <voamvc$nv62$1@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>
 <vo7qqb$36ra$2@dont-email.me> <vo8jr6$7fbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vo9gth$fuct$2@dont-email.me> <vo9o3h$gu6t$2@dont-email.me>
 <voah0r$m3dj$6@dont-email.me> <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 18:00:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16";
	logging-data="785602"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19r13HIrxRfw0hAeCBuRjZ1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bsMTQQzqgndYauLBEwYcR2PyI34=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-4, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8914

On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct decision about DD's 
>>>>> halting behaviour. All other methods (direct execution, simulation 
>>>>> by a world class simulator, etc.) show that DD halts. But HHH fails 
>>>>> to see it. Everyone with sufficient understanding of programming 
>>>>> sees that HHH is not correctly programmed when it aborts one cycle 
>>>>> before the simulation would end 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);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> You lack the ability to do the execution trace
>>>> of HHH simulating DD calling HHH(DD) simulating DD...
>>>
>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete its 
>>> simulation, because HHH is unable to simulate itself.
>>>
>>
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> The above code proves that HHH does simulate itself simulating DD.
>>
>> That you can't understand this code proves that you lack the
>> technical basis to review my work.
>>
> 
> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this simple proof that 
> HHH produces false negatives. HHH is unable to simulate itself up to the 
> normal termination.

If you try to explain your view in terms of a line-by-line
execution trace of DD simulated by HHH everyone will see that
your claim has no actual basis what-so-ever and is merely
utterly baseless rhetoric totally bereft of any supporting
reasoning.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========