Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:07:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 261
Message-ID: <vof7h7$1neb2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vodo13$1ccae$1@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 11:07:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e40aa6d08e0862c6129c85bba1ac1dcb";
	logging-data="1816930"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eYHHCIBJq855S/MhlADIJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sg1V+mgWpnpiEnuRblkWucjU/xY=
In-Reply-To: <vodo13$1ccae$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 14215

Op 10.feb.2025 om 21:36 schreef olcott:
> 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 ==========