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: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 13:04:13 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <voau7d$p4sc$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$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:04:14 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16";
	logging-data="824204"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195YC8RiyJXp9ngexRHgBq6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jH/BU9QT2t2e5iQaiATzRvprYmo=
In-Reply-To: <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-4, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 9981

On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========