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: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:28:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <vqt5ak$2s3s0$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>
 <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me> <vqqq7s$29buv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqqu3$28kp8$2@dont-email.me> <vqqrl7$29meg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqror$29k3n$1@dont-email.me> <vqqrv9$29meg$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqqs14$29k3n$3@dont-email.me> <vqqs5j$29meg$6@dont-email.me>
 <vqqs8p$29k3n$4@dont-email.me> <vqqshn$29meg$7@dont-email.me>
 <vqsmid$2onvs$1@dont-email.me> <vqsqqu$2pu66$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqss8u$2po1m$1@dont-email.me> <vqsus5$2qopi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqt0ao$2q8jp$1@dont-email.me> <vqt1v6$2rc3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqt293$2q8jp$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:28:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c857a159987cd29a4265e3ac68f94ca5";
	logging-data="3018624"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JP+OTTAb2RjeD5NVo8nVl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gjYgNgNrb2sF0DjNzmBIPRLzenE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250312-2, 3/12/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqt293$2q8jp$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7466

On 3/12/2025 5:36 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/12/2025 6:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/12/2025 5:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/12/2025 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/12/2025 3:53 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/12/2025 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/12/2025 2:16 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You are simply lying that any input was ever changed*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You did precisely that when you hypothesize different code 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *THIS IS WHAT MY ORIGINAL WORDS MEANT*
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is the infinite set of every possible C function
>>>>>>>>>>>> that correctly emulates N steps of its input where
>>>>>>>>>>>> N any finite positive integer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you're changing the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is an infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs having the
>>>>>>>>>> property that DDD[0] ... DDD[N] never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, you're not answering the question that a 
>>>>>>>>> solution to the halting problem is required to answer:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes I am yet you refuse to pay anywhere near close
>>>>>>>> enough attention to see how I already fully addressed this.
>>>>>>>> If you pay 100% perfect attention you might get it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False.  (<DDD>,null) maps to 1 as per the above requirements, but 
>>>>>>> your HHH maps (<DDD>,null) to 0, therefore it fails to meet the 
>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <unrelated copy-paste response>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So no response?  I'll take it that you agree with the above.
>>>>
>>>> Making sure to always give credit where credit is due this
>>>> point in our conversation is the point where I first translated
>>>> my perspective into the semantic property of a finite string.
>>>>
>>>> A decider is required to report on a semantic (or syntactic)
>>>> property of its input finite string (even if Rice incorrectly
>>>> says this is impossible in this case) and not allowed to report
>>>> on any damn thing else.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
>>>> <is> an aspect of the semantics of the input finite string
>>>> that cannot be correctly ignored.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Remember the stipulative definition of a solution to the halting 
>>> problem:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Is to map the input finite string to the semantic property
>> of this finite string. Any other mapping contradicts the
>> definition of a decider.
> 
> And that property is as follows:
> 
> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> 
> I should also point out that I never mentioned anything about a 
> "decider", simply "a solution to the halting problem".  Neither did Linz.
> 

<sarcasm>
Sure everyone knows that a halt decider is not kind of decider at all.
</sarcasm>


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer