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 14:36:51 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 239
Message-ID: <vodo13$1ccae$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$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>
 <vocrbl$16uuv$1@dont-email.me> <vodh9d$1ar1l$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 21:36:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c492ea1606c78cee9e5da7f1d71e9cb2";
	logging-data="1454414"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ifvX+PVnj7GKVzN8+oEY4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jrVnJTrOJQjX82TTrHZs97sXGk0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250210-8, 2/10/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vodh9d$1ar1l$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 13307

On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:
>> 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;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========