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: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:10:03 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vopi4t$3ufag$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@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> <vofupe$1q3mf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vojrgb$2oikq$2@dont-email.me> <vokiuo$2s1tr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1jj$34osr$2@dont-email.me>
 <bf2ebcb7fa687306a75c0a85d0fd2dc959898d92@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgag$3anm4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8be76c6ce027ec61028d5081e95717b145b70f24@i2pn2.org>
 <voojie$3mdke$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 09:10:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9963881d2ae0fc98a5f0f52fe8576d6f";
	logging-data="4144464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mbq+LNGYsLfqTONPUzDrf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LLhr6R9lJJhLta2nnYGSNqx7E7k=
In-Reply-To: <voojie$3mdke$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 7780

Op 15.feb.2025 om 00:28 schreef olcott:
> On 2/14/2025 6:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:20:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater
>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply beyond your skill level.
>>>>> Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first one aborts none of
>>>>> them do.
>>>>>
>>>> But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be.
>>>>
>>>> And thus, the one that DD calls aborts.
>>>>
>>> A program that is no longer being simulated DOES NOTHING
>>
>> Hey, let me prove all programs are no-ops, by NOT SIMULATING THEM MWAHAHA
>>
> 
> DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
> 
But HHH aborts and an aborting program is also a halting program. The 
simulation of an aborting program should see that. This is the failure 
of HHH, that it does not see that the aborting simulated program halts. 
It does not even notice that the simulating program aborts.