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: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:58:50 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <vosnea$jd5m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voamvc$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$1@dont-email.me> <vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:58:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9378b53ae005e86e1e1a15d47b99d642";
	logging-data="636086"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SLSItcwsr8HenaLbaBLbs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mfGtDx5ztlgjcKmQKBzdaSJklfY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-0, 2/15/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vosc1j$h568$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11849

On 2/16/2025 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========