Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:44:19 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 172
Message-ID: <vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voambu$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> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me> <von3q8$3d901$1@dont-email.me>
 <vone2v$3ffar$3@dont-email.me> <vonibr$3g195$1@dont-email.me>
 <voobvq$3kga9$1@dont-email.me> <vophu2$3ufag$1@dont-email.me>
 <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:44:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed88295eddf76fadd43b844d44533dce";
	logging-data="562376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SuA4o9FJZku9IheGlfxY+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fpPzXu4zo98ghbVadLcK7A6hw1g=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <voqpf6$5k6g$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11232

Op 15.feb.2025 om 20:21 schreef olcott:
> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees
>>>>>>> by definition. it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot 
>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a 
>>>>>> 2 years old child.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it 
>>>>> specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD)
>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are no 
>>>> substitute for reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does 
>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program 
>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
>>> (a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation
>>> after itself is no longer being simulated.
>>>
>>> (b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation
>>> of none of them do.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========