Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 19:45:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vr2ija$2deaa$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>
 <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> <vr1qh1$1p3ti$3@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 01:45:30 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="089deb6da5a8e3479213476df9745f18";
	logging-data="2537802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8OyLykEX8ltzxAN6itJ0r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sOfnPRNSpURNLJPtLyRR8quKC+w=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vr1qh1$1p3ti$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5092

On 3/14/2025 12:54 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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?

All of the proofs merely show that there cannot
possibly exist any halt decider that returns a
value corresponding to the behavior of any input
that is actually able to do the opposite of whatever
value is returned.

That is essentially the same as no one can possibly
prove that the Liar Paradox is true because there
is something wrong with it.

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