Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:22:00 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vof4ro$1n82r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo79lj$8vq$1@dont-email.me> <vo7qj9$36ra$1@dont-email.me> <vo9tlc$huqu$1@dont-email.me> <voah6m$m3dj$7@dont-email.me> <vocdku$14jpu$1@dont-email.me> <vocpcc$16c4e$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:22:01 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="27dfbdb5e85eed1fb9c73d9383ad7d01";
	logging-data="1810523"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UHZ4/bae7wmNoQO3bHzxZ"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xehx3jR6HJ7oDTPS3uVsscrCTyI=
Bytes: 4511

On 2025-02-10 11:53:48 +0000, olcott said:

> On 2/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-02-09 15:21:57 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 2/9/2025 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-08 14:43:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 00:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>> "if" statement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, it demonstrates the incapability of HHH to correctly determine the 
>>>>>> halting behaviour of DD
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive
>>>>>>> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH. This
>>>>>>> makes HHH necessarily correct to reject its input as
>>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The finite string defines one behaviour. This finite string, when given 
>>>>>> to an X86 processor shows halting behaviour. This finite string,when 
>>>>>> given to a world class simulator, shows halting behaviour. Only HHH 
>>>>>> fails to see this proven halting behaviour. So it proves the failure of 
>>>>>> HHH.
>>>>>> HHH aborts the simulation on unsound grounds one cycle before the 
>>>>>> simulation would terminate 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);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>> has fully operational HHH and DD
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The halting problem has always been a mathematical mapping
>>>>>>> from finite strings to behaviors.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. And the behaviour of this finite string has been proven to show 
>>>>>> halting behaviour. Only Olcott's HHH fails to see it.
>>>>>> His misunderstanding is that he thinks that the behaviour defined by 
>>>>>> the finite string depends on the simulator.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation it is a
>>>>> verified fact that DD cannot possibly halt.
>>>> 
>>>> The word "cannot" is not compatible with the meaning of the word "fact".
>>>> That "DD cannot possibly halt" is not a fact. A fact may be that "DD has
>>>> not halted in any test so far".
>>> 
>>> Cannot possibly halt in the same way that an infinite
>>> loop cannot possibly halt.
>> 
>> I.e., an inference, not a fact.
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> It is more than a fact it is a truism.

A truism is not more than a fact. It is just a different thing.

>>> That you don't understand
>>> the C programming language well enough to see this counts
>>> as no rebuttal what-so-ever.
>> 
>> It is a sin to present a false claim about another person.
> 
> Then quit doing it.

I can remind you that it is a sin but I can't prevent you from doing it.

Anyway, this is not relevant to the observation that the claim on
the subject claim is false.

-- 
Mikko