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: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:50:42 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <vocsn3$175kh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <9040383e40c864ac14a0abc48b49985f9ec207d1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:50:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c492ea1606c78cee9e5da7f1d71e9cb2";
	logging-data="1283729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Sh9g3UQXwBGd4g32D8iPj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KxHbvU5xKD80NwAr/SDPn1V5ilo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9040383e40c864ac14a0abc48b49985f9ec207d1@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250210-0, 2/9/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 8530

On 2/10/2025 6:47 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 05:51:21 -0600 schrieb 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:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite strings to behaviors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this simple
>>>>>>>>> proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>> simulate itself up to the normal termination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts.
>>>>>>> HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in
>>>>>>>          int main() {           return HHH(main);
>>>>>>>          }
>>>>>>> but he denies it.
>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, which he
>>>>>>> tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be correctly
>>>>>> simulated by HHH until its normal termination.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself correctly.
>>>>
>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where HHH is
>>>> incorrect.
>>>
>>> It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to Olcott many
>>> times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
>>> It is a verified fact that main halts,
>>
>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot possibly
>> terminate normally. The strawman error <is> an error.
> Yeah, if the input HHH doesn’t terminate, that is not a decider.
> 

The directly executed HHH(DD) correctly rejects its
input on the basis that DD simulated by HHH 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