Path: ...!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 20:33:32 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <voavuf$p4au$4@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 20:33:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33";
	logging-data="823646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18th6par44tGsIbHNjNDM/4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9oMMdNbPmY0fEtEorWDip1TsoFk=
In-Reply-To: <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 10290

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========