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: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 06:31:36 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 13:31:41 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36334507e537e7a446b2fdddfcc9069f";
	logging-data="3055874"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19aOOsZMVBStTMBtEwwtV4b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BtURBVY0WuIx1Zjodbrv9OXzWP8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250213-4, 2/13/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7417

On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb 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
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete its simulation, because HHH is unable to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the
>>>>>>>>>>> correct value.
>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct
>>>>>>>>>> value as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according
>>>>>>>>> to spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it
>>>>>>>>> can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH
>>>>>>>>> doesn’t halt, it is not a decider.
>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that.
>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections.
>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute
>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>> possible terminate normally.
> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH.
> 
>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next month
>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will totally
>> ignore anything that diverges from the point.
> Ok, I will wait a month then.
> 

Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows
that DD correctly 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