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 reiterated
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 21:08:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <vr033r$ad6n$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>
 <vqpv2u$23vhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <Ny-dnRlMHcVpA036nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <878qp9gckd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vquvvs$3dmpj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e396868b6758cf3ab86721ef2714425be55485f4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 03:09:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ff784cf00d0e66498015027da0851fa3";
	logging-data="341207"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JJyxEW6WxlUgTc7Ezs/0J"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EtJACNiPiJxB8utBotCCUBocHy4=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250313-6, 3/13/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <e396868b6758cf3ab86721ef2714425be55485f4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5922

On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/13/25 12:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/13/2025 10:44 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 11/03/2025 18:23, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2025 17:42, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> Finally, if you really want to see the actual HHH code, its in the
>>>>>> halt7.c file (along with DDD) that PO provides links to from time to
>>>>>> time.  However it's not very illuminating due to bugs/design
>>>>>> errors/misunderstandings which only serve to obfuscate PO's errors in
>>>>>> thinking.
>>>>> [I've now seen the code. Oh deary deary me.]
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for a spirited attempt to be cogent - or at least as 
>>>>> cogent as
>>>>> it is possible to be in the circumstances!
>>>>> I think PO's first step must be to demonstrate that HHH() correctly
>>>>> diagnoses some easy functions, such as these:
>>>>
>>>> Not really necessary - PO is not trying or claiming to have a (full)
>>>> halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Originally his claim was that he had a program which worked for the
>>>> counter-example TM used in the common (e.g. Linz book) proof.
>>>
>>> That, of course, depends on the way the wind's blowing.  For example in
>>> 2020:
>>>
>>>    "The non-halting decider that I defined accepts any and all
>>>    non-halting inputs and rejects any and all halting inputs."
>>>
>>> But then he retreated to the "once case" argument again until:
>>>
>>> Me: "Recent posts have said that you really do claim to have a halting
>>>      decider.  Have you extended your claim or was that a
>>>      misunderstanding?"
>>>
>>> PO: "I really do have a halting decider."
>>>
>>>> ... Such a
>>>> program is impossible, as Linz and others prove, so having a program 
>>>> H and
>>>> its corresponding "counter-example" D, such that H correctly decides D,
>>>> would certainly show that the Linz proof is wrong.  His claim was 
>>>> always
>>>> that he had "refuted the HP proof", or sometimes that he had refuted 
>>>> the HP
>>>> theorem itself although he's been told dozens of times that there 
>>>> are many
>>>> alternative proofs for the result.
>>>
>>> Way back in 2004 he was sure that:
>>>
>>>    "I have correctly refuted each and every mechanism by which the
>>>    [halting theorem] has been proven to be true. I have not shown that
>>>    solving the Halting Problem is possible, merely refuted every proof
>>>    that it is impossible."
>>>
>>> I expect a publication anytime.  20 years is just about enough to get
>>> all the details right.
>>>
>>>> [As it turned out, PO's D(D) halted when run under his x86utm 
>>>> environment,
>>>> while H(D,D) which is required to return the halting status of 
>>>> computation
>>>> D(D) returned 0 (=non-halting).  That is exactly what the Linz proofs
>>>> claim!]
>>>
>>> We must always remember that PO has re-defined what it means for the
>>> answer to be correct:
>>>
>>> Me: "Here's the key question: do you still assert that H(P,P) == false
>>>      is the "correct" answer even though P(P) halts?"
>>>
>>> PO: "Yes that is the correct answer even though P(P) halts."
>>>
>>> He's been quite clear about it:
>>>
>>>    "When we make the single change that I suggest the halting problem
>>>    ceases to be impossible to solve because this revised question is not
>>>    subject to pathological self-reference."
>>>
>>>    "This transforms an undecidable problem into a decidable problem."
>>>
>>> I hope you forgive me just chipping in with stuff you know perfectly
>>> well, but I thought I'd just give some background as Richard is a new
>>> participant and my comments fit better with your post than his.
>>>
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> When N steps of DD are correctly emulated by
>> any HHH then each DD cannot possibly reach
>> its own final state and terminate normally.
> 
> No, the PARTIAL EMULATION done by HHH can't reach that point, 

But a complete emulation can?

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