Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: 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> 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 ==========