Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 16:53:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vvfs5c$12ph9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4>
 <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4> <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me> <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me> <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me> <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me> <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me> <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me>
 <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me> <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me> <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me> <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me>
 <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me> <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me> <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me> <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvdo96$3lapa$1@dont-email.me> <vvdr87$3n3t4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me> <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vveu05$odan$3@dont-email.me> <vvfmrf$11mbc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 16:53:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1f8f63a6b9b5f3b438700d1281f1281f";
	logging-data="1140265"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eUAaQoPMBCQ0xQz3PK/Xt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XHTA1Dhh+Dxs5FW2bg7jB3vCp7M=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vvfmrf$11mbc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5647

Op 07.mei.2025 om 15:22 schreef olcott:
> On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that 
>>>>>> HHH aborts, 
>>>>>
>>>>> When you trace through the actual steps you
>>>>> will see that this is counter-factual.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of the two 
>>>> traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed IDENTICAL 
>>>> line for line up to the point where HHH decided to discontinue 
>>>> simulating. 
>>>
>>> That is counter-factual.
>>
>> People who can be bothered to check for themselves can check for 
>> themselves.
>>
>> People who (like me) can't be arsed to go through the palaver of 
>> getting your code to work must instead decide who they think is more 
>> credible - you or Mike.
>>
>> No contest.
>>
>> If you want people to believe you, you've got your work cut out. 
>> Shooting emotionally from the hip (as you do) isn't as convincing as 
>> explaining precisely, logically, and dispassionately why you're right 
>> (as Mike does).
>>
>> If I were to run a book right now on an independent investigation of 
>> the point in the trace where the two traces diverge, I could offer 
>> astronomical odds on your claim without any fear of losing a penny, 
>> but no matter what odds I offered on Mike I would quickly have to 
>> close the book on his claim or face bankruptcy.
>>
>> It isn't just your logic that needs a lot off work; it's your 
>> presentation, too. You come across as someone who /believes/ you're 
>> right, but it's not enough to call down lightning on Mike the heretic; 
>> Mike manages to keep calm because he /knows/ he's right. There's a 
>> huge and important difference between the two.
>>
>> There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's 
>> claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-factual. 
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> Any sufficiently competent C programmer can see that
> when DD is correctly simulated by HHH that this
> simulated DD cannot get past its call to HHH(DD).

No one says that it can go past that point. Everybody here knows that 
HHH has a bug, which makes it impossible for it to reach the end of the 
halting program.

> 
> The reason that I get angry is that everyone here
> has denied that verified fact for three years.

Better get angry that you fail to understand for so many years what 
everybody is telling you. Nobody has denied verified facts here, except you.

> 
> Can it really be true that most people here don't
> hardly have any clue about actual programming?

No, there is only one here having no clue about programming.

> 
>> Mike says he's posted evidence in support of his claim. I haven't seen 
>> it, but of the two of you I will unhesitatingly take his word for it 
>> rather than yours. Have you posted a rebuttal? If not, why not?
>>
> 
> The rebuttal is that
> Even the simple code shown above proves that DD
> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own halt state.

Yes, we understand that due to a bug, HHH aborts prematurely and 
therefore does not reach the perfectly reachable code.

> 
> I never take anyone's word, not even my doctor's word.
> 

I am sorry for you. You will never learn anything in this way.