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 13:33:32 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <voavud$pj0i$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$1@dont-email.me> <voalvu$ng5r$1@dont-email.me>
 <voambf$nrgd$1@dont-email.me> <voat89$p4au$1@dont-email.me>
 <voatvl$p4sc$1@dont-email.me> <voavo3$p4au$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:33:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16";
	logging-data="838674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/yUOawp96ozT5mle/equmj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TaBrMZLgI/ACqrxld4Nm39YIUi8=
In-Reply-To: <voavo3$p4au$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-4, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7049

On 2/9/2025 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:00 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/9/2025 12:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 17:49 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> No sense talking to people that lack sufficient technical
>>>> skill to verify facts. There is no bug and you know it.
>>>
>>> No sense to talk to people denying verified facts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>
>>> Indeed, because HHH fails to simulate itself up to the end.
>>> This is verified with:
>>>
>>>         int main() {
>>>           return HHH(main);
>>>         }
>>>
>>
>> There is no simulating itself to the end with the above
>> example either. 
> 
> It seems Olcott misses trivial facts. HHH simulates main, which calls 
> HHH, so HHH needs to simulate HHH. HHH is unable to complet the 
> simulation up to the end, because it 

specifies a computation that cannot possibly terminate normally.


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