Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- COMPLETE PROOF
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:45:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <vpm2p7$29cod$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$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>
 <vore4m$9ddo$1@dont-email.me> <vpkq6t$22eec$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpl0h8$23vks$4@dont-email.me> <vpl3b4$24nse$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpla7l$25vp2$1@dont-email.me> <vplitb$27kuo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vplvle$29cod$1@dont-email.me> <vpm2c5$29obh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 04:45:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8c7f346afa17fa83955460762decb93";
	logging-data="2405133"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qvRUTHXf8som7nJQtkQtl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rC4NyT7rN70QrSJ1udXWMFDusgE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpm2c5$29obh$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5374

On 2/25/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/25/2025 8:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/25/2025 6:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/25/2025 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/25/2025 12:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 2/25/2025 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 10:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> Althogh the subject line has the words "COMPLETE PROOF" there is no
>>>>>>> proof or pointer to proof below.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above does specify that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
>>>>>> own "return" instruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level.
>>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignoring the code in main() seemed dishonest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>>>>>
>>>>> int F(uintptr_t p);
>>>>>
>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>>    return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above does specify that no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F
>>>>> cannot possibly terminate normally by reaching its
>>>>> own "return" instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That this may be beyond your technical skill level
>>>>> is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>
>>>> Finally you made something that was not wrong in several different 
>>>> ways.
>>>> So what is your point?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> Good.  So now looking again at the code, this time showing the 
>> implementation of F:
>>
>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10();
>>
>> int F(uintptr_t p)
>> {
>>    uintptr_t ptr = (uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10;
>>    uintptr_t i = p ^ ptr;i
> 
> I am never going to attempt to deal with this convoluted bullshit.

It's XORing the input value with the address of 
no_numbers_greater_than_10.  It allows F to both accept the address of 
no_numbers_greater_than_10 as a parameter as well an arbitrary number.

By doing allowing F to take the address of a function, F can be 
construed as a simulator by performing a calculation on that address to 
start emulating the first instruction, and breaking out of the recursive 
call can be construed as aborting that simulation.

The point is, no_numbers_greater_than_10 has been proven not to halt, as 
you have agreed, and since it doesn't halt that proves that there are no 
natural numbers greater than 10.

Agreed?

> 
>>    if (i > 10)
>>      return 0;
>>    else
>>      return F((i+1) ^ ptr);
>> }
>>
>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>> {
>>    return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>    return 0;
>> }
>>
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 determines whether there exists a number 
>> greater than 10 by testing all numbers.  If if finds one, it aborts 
>> and halts returning 0.  If it does not, it gets stuck in infinite 
>> recursion and does not halt.
>>
>> Since it was correctly determined, and you agreed, that 
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 does not halt, we can conclude that there 
>> are no natural numbers greater than 10.
>>
>> Agreed?
> 
>