Path: 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 12:42:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vr72hn$26c3n$5@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> <vr6v4h$24erq$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 18:42:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="07a083537033e8637263f61b76c22e15";
	logging-data="2306167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dIrfMzhrpU047kQ1JNrTD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MMomCOVzgpZ/Ph1pSy/qAhTORWE=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250316-4, 3/16/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vr6v4h$24erq$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/16/2025 11:44 AM, dbush wrote:
> 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.

He has not yet agreed.
The key point here is whether or not this
would indicate that he agrees that this
alternate criteria is correct.

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