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 22:40:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <vr2ssb$2kq04$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$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>
 <vr2ija$2deaa$1@dont-email.me> <vr2jet$2d3ah$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr2l2e$2deaa$6@dont-email.me> <vr2lfc$2d3ah$4@dont-email.me>
 <vr2mau$2deaa$8@dont-email.me> <vr2mp2$2d3ah$6@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 04:41:00 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="089deb6da5a8e3479213476df9745f18";
	logging-data="2779140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zl2dzYYhlKWlSgIWuAR1V"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TlBuF928el4Nphg7QUyiSn5KpFg=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vr2mp2$2d3ah$6@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7094

On 3/14/2025 8:56 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/14/2025 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2025 8:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2025 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/14/2025 8:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly.  What they prove is that no H exists that satisfies 
>>>>> these requirements:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>
>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes 
>>>>> the following mapping:
>>>>>
>>>>> (<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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The executed directly part is bogus as I have
>>>> shown and your indoctrination blindly ignores.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But I want to know if any arbitrary X with input Y halts when 
>>> executed directly, 
>>
>> Even when some inputs are BOGUS.
>>
> 
> Did I stutter?
> 
> I want to know if any arbitrary X with input Y halts when executed

If you reject "ls;dlfm skdofdfn 894&49.8244bewr" as a syntactically
incorrect input then you are being inconsistent when you fail to reject
semantically incorrect inputs.

> directly.  If I had an H that could tell me that in *all* possible 
> cases, I could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved 
> problems.
> 
> Does an H exist that can tell me that or not?



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