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 --- Paraphrase of
 Sipser's agreement
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:42:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <vr6v1p$259sb$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>
 <vqpv2u$23vhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <Ny-dnRlMHcVpA036nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqrjrn$2h4l2$1@dont-email.me>
 <nESdnUfJxdhoTkz6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqsl7c$2ok91$1@dont-email.me>
 <f7b6995ae3e79db00fa5070d9be8126b7ea5ae78@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt99l$2spcd$5@dont-email.me> <vqu84v$363tm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqvgpn$3s1qt$4@dont-email.me> <vr0rcu$10780$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr1f32$1ev1a$4@dont-email.me> <vr3jpq$3abnf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4rb6$bkso$1@dont-email.me>
 <1571d378add9779a0986b4df903964c7241f94a7@i2pn2.org>
 <vr6pc5$1udpn$6@dont-email.me> <vr6qu6$21k0t$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:42:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="07a083537033e8637263f61b76c22e15";
	logging-data="2271115"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wXqkR44Td2Z5xT737AETS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9l/0+AXD2yaLgqDrp18iPJQLw7U=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250316-4, 3/16/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vr6qu6$21k0t$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5416

On 3/16/2025 10:32 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/16/2025 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/16/2025 7:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 15 Mar 2025 16:27:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 3/15/2025 5:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-14 14:39:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 3/14/2025 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 20:56:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-13 00:36:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When HHH correctly emulates N steps of the above functions 
>>>>>>>>>> none of
>>>>>>>>>> them can possibly reach their own "return" instruction and
>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, assuming HHH is a decider, Infinite_Loop and
>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion specify a non-terminating behaviour, DDD
>>>>>>>>> specifies a terminating behaviour
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the sequence of machine language instructions of DDD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH such that DDD reaches its machine address 00002183?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant off-topic distraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proving that you don't have a clue that Rice's Theorem is anchored in
>>>>>> the behavior that its finite string input specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another irrelevant off-topic distraction, this time involving a false
>>>>> claim.
>>>>> One can be a competent C programmer without knowing anyting about
>>>>> Rice's Theorem.
>>>> YES.
>>>>
>>>>> Rice's Theorem is about semantic properties in general, not just
>>>>> behaviours.
>>>>> The unsolvability of the halting problem is just a special case.
>>>>>
>>>> Does THE INPUT TO simulating termination analyzer HHH encode a C
>>>> function that reaches its "return"
>>>> instruction [WHEN SIMULATED BY HHH] (The definition of simulating
>>>> termination analyzer) ???
>>
>>> That can't be right. Otherwise my simulator could just not simulate
>>> at all and say that no input halts.
>>>
>>
>> Originally a "decider" was any TM that always stops
>> running for any reason.
>>
>> In computability theory, a decider is a Turing
>> machine that halts for every input.[1]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine)
>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> key word "correctly"
>>>
>>
>> *I anchored what correct emulation means now*
>>
>> <Accurate Paraphrase>
>> If emulating termination analyzer H emulates its input
>> finite string D of x86 machine language instructions
>> according to the semantics of the x86 programming language
>> until H correctly determines that this emulated D cannot
>> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction in any finite
>> number of correctly emulated steps then
>>
>> H can abort its emulation of input D and correctly report
>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </Accurate Paraphrase>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Nope:
> 
I have new words you freaking moron Ben never saw these new words.

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