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: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:47:42 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$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>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 15:47:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c77a36923a1ae4198355bb0659bda383";
	logging-data="3102661"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ArGvgwdHGUmLGTWkVip7y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rp6QbysiSm8Sk+6vqpm1mzPA9VU=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7544

Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
> 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.

Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot 
properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct 
simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates normally.