Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 23:23:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vsvk08$2r125$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vss56v$375du$2@dont-email.me> <vss91c$3b1no$1@dont-email.me>
 <vssabb$3aqnp$2@dont-email.me> <vssavl$3b2j0$3@dont-email.me>
 <20250405153728.395@kylheku.com> <vsse5t$3gbj1$1@dont-email.me>
 <86tt71fuxh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <vsu73b$1b0t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <86y0wcelxp.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 06:23:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e05e30b916a4510aeecd6eefdc924a76";
	logging-data="2982981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SQuhMt8UrcgYG67BTksK+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ICWgXJXprtqgf+PlacXUPCn67/Q=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <86y0wcelxp.fsf@linuxsc.com>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250406-4, 4/6/2025), Outbound message

On 4/6/2025 9:37 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 4/6/2025 5:25 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2025 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-04-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2025 23:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The difference between us is that I know it and you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Olcott resides in a fortress he built out of bricks that were
>>>>> specially ordered from Dunning and Kruger's website.
>>>>> You're not getting through.
>>>>
>>>> Well, no.  On the other hand, the discussion has in places driven
>>>> me to the literature and has thus in its own way been
>>>> educational.  For example, I was surprised to discover that
>>>> although Turing's 1936 paper does deal with the Halting Problem,
>>>> he doesn't actually use that term, which didn't surface until
>>>> 1952.  I also stumbled on a 1972 paper on incomputability by Tony
>>>> Hoare and Donald Allison - well worth the read, and I was amused
>>>> by its somewhat prescient opening paragraph: "[...] programmers
>>>> have been known to attempt solutions to problems which are
>>>> probably unsolvable;  the existence of such problems should be of
>>>> interest to all programmers."  Clearly, 53 years ago, they already
>>>> had Olcott nailed.
>>>
>>> I agree these discoveries are interesting, but the subject still
>>> isn't one that is suitable for comp.lang.c.  A good way to avoid
>>> these long pointless discussions is not to respond to postings
>>> that are not suitable to comp.lang.c, except to point out that
>>> they are not suitable to comp.lang.c.  And for any given poster,
>>> don't respond to unsuitable postings more often than once a month.
>>
>> My intent was to focus on the semantics of a pair of C functions.
>> Digression into computer science seems inappropriate and never
>> was my intent.  The comp.theory people refused to consider the
>> semantics of C aspects of these functions.
> 
> It seems the people who are responding to you have the impression
> that you are convinced you have a solution to the halting problem,
> and that your questions about code are in effect asking people to
> convince you that you don't (or alternatively that you are offering
> an argument that you have solved the halting problem).
> 
> If indeed your interest is only about how C defines the semantics of
> some particular functions written in C, and having nothing to do
> with solving the halting problem, then the burden is on you to
> express that question well enough so that other people realize that.
> So far it appears that you haven't succeeded with anyone who has
> responded to your postings.

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

The people responding to my posts have consistently
stonewalled my every attempt to:
(a) Show that DD correctly simulated by HHH could
     never reach its own "return" instruction.

(b) We never got to (b) because of endless stonewalling.

The end goal (in this forum) that is empirically proven
by this fully operational code:

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

is to show that HHH is a correct termination analyzer for DD.

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