Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:27:33 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 216
Message-ID: <vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$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> <vocd0e$14a92$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocp7p$16c4e$2@dont-email.me> <vocqjl$16qj7$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 13:27:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c492ea1606c78cee9e5da7f1d71e9cb2";
	logging-data="1276895"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/PstZmGe7oHLMEz0pTlmZG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AiETujZuKqfN5JsuFB0UuzORPi0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250210-0, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vocqjl$16qj7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12263

On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========