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: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Semantic
 Property of Finite String
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 19:34:35 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <vqt5mb$2q8jp$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>
 <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> <vqt5ak$2s3s0$1@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 00:34:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bfda177ea2e5d824256b51a2c43e6950";
	logging-data="2957945"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+ncKM+gNecfa2lZoNu35/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mGQaW+ElwUWnrpUWESZo7WenHzk=
In-Reply-To: <vqt5ak$2s3s0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7626

On 3/12/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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>
> 
> 

So no answer.  Then you accept that HHH(DDD)==0 is wrong because it 
isn't performing the above mapping required to be a solution to the 
halting problem.