Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!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: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:54:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <voatki$p4au$2@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 19:54:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33";
	logging-data="823646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ypRnhIVD7/FQmKTcLgD7T"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fOpjWF0O63U7qhSoyAakjTZGI9c=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9234

Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
> 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 ==========