Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 08:35:24 +0000
Organization: Fix this later
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <vqrh0c$2frof$3@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>
 <vqqq1n$29buv$1@dont-email.me>
 <55f5bff6e57c359e9f378234425022f2de863456@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:35:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e46a42d02300691bd0ac693a83620d5";
	logging-data="2617103"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++2//PvZ7E2gj3Ol8MsqX78bJcdE+qarJA+nKM3uz2xQ=="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X2PaTl30fxNGd7k/d63OgEAWyQo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <55f5bff6e57c359e9f378234425022f2de863456@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 2877

On 12/03/2025 08:24, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Mar 2025 21:03:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/11/2025 8:41 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".
>> *It was dishonest of you to remove this context*
>> On 3/11/2025 12:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>   > (Even though it demonstrably DOES halt if not aborted and simulated
>>   > further.
>> That statement is stupidly false.
> lol
> 
>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD.
>> No you have this WRONG.
>> My WHOLE effort has been to correctly determine the halt status of the
>> conventional halting problem proof's "impossible" input.
> It is impossible because a decider doesn't exist.

Nor can it. We've known that for a long time because Turing gave 
the proof in 1936.

The OP's counterproof, such as it is, relies on his having a 
working general-purpose decision program, and he seems to accept 
that he doesn't have one, so he's hoping it's good enough to have 
a decision program that can make a decision for one program. 
(Clearly it isn't.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within