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 --- Truthmaker
 Maximalism
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:54:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vr1qh1$1p3ti$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>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvi94$3tk5h$1@dont-email.me> <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr17h1$18je3$1@dont-email.me> <vr1err$1ev1a$2@dont-email.me>
 <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com>
 <vr1ja0$1ev1a$9@dont-email.me>
 <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com>
 <vr1lnu$1ev1a$12@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:54:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="de6d1f4cd6a715d770e5f2e07026b593";
	logging-data="1871794"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Y3OHVd25qw9gAZnBT2KG7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BVSjid69xBWB34MCA0IdNA//idE=
In-Reply-To: <vr1lnu$1ev1a$12@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4310

On 3/14/2025 12:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 11:01 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 10:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2025 10:04 AM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>      HHH(DDD);
>>>>>      return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
>>>>> correctly simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you are clueless about the semantics of something
>>>>> as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
>>>>> competent to review my work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>>> determining, from a description of
>>>> an
>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will 
>>>> finish running, or continue to
>>>> run
>>>> forever.
>>>>
>>>> That means: H(D)=1 if D() halts and H(D)=0 if D() does not halt.
>>>>
>>>> But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my level, ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The only difference between HHH and HHH1 is that they are
>>> at different locations in memory. DDD simulated by HHH1
>>> has identical behavior to DDD() directly executed in main().
>>>
>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
>>> that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
>>> to simulate to DDD exactly once.
>>>
>>> When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite
>>> string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting.
>>>
>>> When HHH(DDD) is required to report on behavior other than
>>> the behavior that its finite string specifies HHH is not
>>> a decider thus not a halt decider.
>>>
>>> All deciders are required to compute the mapping from
>>> their input finite string to the semantic or syntactic property
>>> that this string specifies. Deciders return true when this
>>> string specifies this property otherwise they return false.
>>>
>>
>> Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No.
>>
>>
> 
> I have only correctly refuted the conventional halting
> problem proof. 

And what exactly do you think this proof is proving?  More specifically, 
what do you think the Linz proof is proving?