Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 17:44:30 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vofupe$1q3mf$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$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>
 <f4a1a9c106d4490f0ede6900ed3327ea4110624a@i2pn2.org>
 <vofne1$1qh2r$1@dont-email.me> <vofsqb$1q3mf$2@dont-email.me>
 <voftfg$1rkco$2@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 17:44:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e40aa6d08e0862c6129c85bba1ac1dcb";
	logging-data="1904335"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19AlWLjEQbhkmfmXCEp1JSY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k7YlYVqDISqwwvdeLrzAXY3MLwg=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <voftfg$1rkco$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6594

Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott:
> On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie normally
>>>>>>> The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This main is a program that includes all functions called directly 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> indirectly, including HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>
>>>> The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not simulate 
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The directly executed main() is not the same instance of
>>> main() that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
>>>
>>> The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting
>>> the simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything
>>> else aborting the simulation of its input.
>>
>> The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort.
> 
> That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least one
> more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees.
> 

Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation.
HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem.