Path: 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 --- Paraphrase of
 Sipser's agreement
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 12:44:03 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <vr6v4h$24erq$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>
 <vr6v1p$259sb$1@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 17:44:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67c63d6f95dcce4899f1b1432e20e56d";
	logging-data="2243450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dwnBkuTC8SZhLguGtcSdi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5wHgwOgr10u2ODP9VA7976HaSps=
In-Reply-To: <vr6v1p$259sb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/16/2025 12:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

And Sipser didn't agree to the paraphrase so it's just you giving your 
opinion.