Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A
 TIME !!!
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:34:06 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <vpc5mi$3slgq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me>
 <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me> <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me> <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me>
 <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me> <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me>
 <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me> <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me>
 <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me> <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org>
 <vp22fi$1n991$3@dont-email.me> <vp24ev$1namo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp2dlj$1p9f5$3@dont-email.me> <vp4dbk$27ck7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp5ta6$2gt2s$2@dont-email.me> <vp6t0k$2orpr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpb1f6$3jct4$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 10:34:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a42dac334aadcfa837045277acf5aaa4";
	logging-data="4085274"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Udj+FzSysbf3w0fnWAXH5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MTC+CgqHyglsjRph7l2t/AHHoxY=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vpb1f6$3jct4$12@dont-email.me>

Op 22.feb.2025 om 00:15 schreef olcott:
> On 2/20/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.feb.2025 om 01:34 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above shows that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding instance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysers.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we *know* that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cake and eat it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not imply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abnormally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>   HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to
>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary 
>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot 
>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming 
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> can see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop
>>>>>>>>> after the "if" statement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of 
>>>>>>>> itself it sees called does that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully
>>>>>>> deficient than I ever imagined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH
>>>>>>> that sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation
>>>>>>> none of them do because they all have the exact same code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is 
>>>>>> changed to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does 
>>>>>> not understand that a modification of a program makes a change. 
>>>>>> Such a change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non- 
>>>>>> termination behaviour has disappeared with this change and only 
>>>>>> remains in his dreams. After this change, the simulation would 
>>>>>> terminate normally and HHH should no longer abort. But it does, 
>>>>>> because the code that detects the 'special condition' has a bug, 
>>>>>> which makes that it does not see that the program has been changed 
>>>>>> into a halting program.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I focus on one single-point:
>>>>> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally]
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>> It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott 
>>>> ignores it when it is addressed.
>>>>
>>>> What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program 
>>>> DD up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to 
>>>> complete the simulation, it still fails. 
>>>
>>> It fails In the same way that every CAD system
>>> will never correctly represent a geometric circle that has
>>> four equal length sides in the same two dimensional plane.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========