Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 22:02:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 03:02:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8716d0356783f046d50792ab42ba1cd2";
	logging-data="2380584"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+G01t2wTke+yDrbYaTFPHz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nCnJn2/gqSZugGh0YCJK6tw2gd0=
In-Reply-To: <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2652

On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>> simulated steps.
> 
> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't terminate. 
> Look up "infinite".
> 
> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. That, as you 
> are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you can't get out of it. The 
> whole point of the Entscheidungsproblem is its universality. Ignore 
> that, and you have nothing.
> 


Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0, resulting in DD halting 
when run, he's claiming that HHH(DD)==0 is actually the right answer.

When he says "DDD correctly simulated by HHH" that's code for "replacing 
the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running 
HHH(DD)", and that's the question that his HHH is actually attempting to 
answer, not the halting question.

He doesn't understand that while his criteria is basically the same as 
the halting criteria, given HHH(X) where X doesn't include a call to 
HHH, it is not the same in cases where X does include a call to HHH, as 
DD does.  His criteria changes the input in that case, but he doesn't 
get it.