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 --- Truthmaker
 Maximalism
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:28:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vr2e2p$25gpq$7@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>
 <86fbc35155fbcb3e88cf0dd069d16d61e16bcf4e.camel@gmail.com>
 <vr1oev$1ev1a$15@dont-email.me> <vr1qu3$1p3ti$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:28:25 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52609e06aaa7487bac02a0c7f1caaa86";
	logging-data="2278202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ji97HQf4P/gm8U2vNcD9E"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YXKgizvpPf/+w8pTuWp8MWArut8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vr1qu3$1p3ti$4@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5924

On 3/14/2025 1:01 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2025 11:58 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 11:33 -0500, 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. Actually solving the halting problem
>>>> requires a program that is ALL KNOWING thus God like.
>>>
>>> I (GUR) had told you God cannot solve HP neither (maybe because the 
>>> problem is limited in a box)
>>>
>>
>> When we define the HP as having H return a value
>> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
>> and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
>> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
>> in to a problem having no solution.
>>
> 
> 
> And that is EXACTLY what the halting problem is about: it is not 
> possible to construct an H where H(X,Y) reports whether X(Y) halts when 
> executed directly.
> 
> A problem that you have now EXPLICITLY agreed is unsolvable.  So...
> 

Likewise:
What time is it (yes or no)? equally has no solution.
That BOGUS problem instances have no solution places
no actual limit on anything.

I coined the term "incorrect question" years ago.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/lSdYexJ0ozo/m/aDN9-TYLHwIJ

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