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 19:46:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <vr7rcu$2o5t3$8@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>
 <924e8f5f4cec502561e71614541be8f860ab2c17@i2pn2.org>
 <vr7548$26c3n$10@dont-email.me>
 <57a643b8e00ffe9f7ec574036fd1c42c8dd08990@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 01:46:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0f48b8dfe2572cae45163161e4c48aae";
	logging-data="2889635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18bMx0SFgDZei91sNVGv7lK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XOAqFblZ86EP9JrJsV5VBG64zYo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250316-4, 3/16/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <57a643b8e00ffe9f7ec574036fd1c42c8dd08990@i2pn2.org>

On 3/16/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/16/25 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/16/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/15/25 5:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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. The depth of your knowledge is memorizing
>>>>>> quotes from textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A property about Turing machines can be represented as the language 
>>>> of all Turing machines, encoded as strings, that satisfy that property.
>>>> http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/Rice.html
>>>>
>>>> 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) ???
>>>
>>> Then your idea of a "simulating termination analyzer" isn't what 
>>> anyone else would define one to be, and th
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> Right, when it determines that the CORRECT SIMULATION of the program 
>>> given to it.
>>>
>>> That means D is a program, and thus is includes all its code, 
>>> including the code for H, and 
>>
>> The semantics of the C/x86 programming languages
>> specify what a correct simulation/emulation is.
> 
> Right, and that exactly matches the direct execution of the code, and 
> requires that all the code used is provided.
> 
>>
>> Thus DD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH cannot
>> possibly reach its own "return"/"ret" instruction
>> and terminate normally.
>>
> 
> And if HHH is defined to do a correct emulation of its input, it will 
> never return an answer.
> 

I don't think this is over your head, maybe it is:
HHH can see that DDD will not halt in two complete
emulations.

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