Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vr3u03$3idjs$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:06:11 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 144 Message-ID: <vr3u03$3idjs$1@dont-email.me> References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@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> <vr2ssb$2kq04$1@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 14:06:11 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="22e85aca536ab619b45b62b85c20fbc6"; logging-data="3749500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+N43leuoycMXGbyKalWrlP" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TnzwZOAFVPigprR9hlEueLqzzb0= In-Reply-To: <vr2ssb$2kq04$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7506 On 3/14/2025 11:40 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > No such thing. All algorithms X are valid as are all inputs Y to those algorithms. So I'll repeat: I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed 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? >> 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? > > >