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: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:22:38 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <vocd0e$14a92$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
 <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:22:39 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ea6ab81fd9e65b423b891673b2134168";
	logging-data="1190178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LlV1W4XuKNkmUFqlbBLVS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MXU57KjR3pBhFJCmwJ/nosbYS00=
In-Reply-To: <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 11463

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef olcott:
> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========