Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 23:21:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 182 Message-ID: <103l67e$3ul4b$1@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me> <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me> <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me> <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me> <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me> <103h07f$2q86f$3@dont-email.me> <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 06:21:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5e8bf149ad22c63d77dbd8bd904cd54"; logging-data="4150411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18BujGMdnR4bICBuLcdtan3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:MmKf41rhkG4BU41iKq/ZcLpd5MY= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250626-6, 6/26/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <103j6u5$3dds8$1@dont-email.me> On 6/26/2025 5:20 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-25 14:14:07 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/25/2025 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-24 14:06:12 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/24/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 23.jun.2025 om 16:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 22.jun.2025 om 21:27 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2025 11:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2025 om 16:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof that square circles exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would seem to make you a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how this is not correct: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though the end is only one cycle further from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point where it gave up the simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort >>>>>>>>>>>>> and halt, the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating HHH, so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH is only one cycle away from the same point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is. >>>>>>>>>>>> First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this. >>>>>>>>>>>> All CS graduates would understand this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That you do not understand what I write makes it difficult >>>>>>>>>>> for you to learn from your errors. >>>>>>>>>>> It is not that difficult. Try again and pay full attention to >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort >>>>>>>>>>> and halt, >>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, >>>>>>>>>>> so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is >>>>>>>>>>> only one cycle away from the same point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes this is factual. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *This is only ordinary computer programming with* >>>>>>>>>> *no theory of computation computer science required* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator >>>>>>>>>> no matter how deep the recursive simulations go. This means >>>>>>>>>> that the outermost directly executed HHH reaches its abort >>>>>>>>>> criteria first. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And it fails to see that the simulated HHH would reach exactly >>>>>>>>> the same abort criteria one cycle later. >>>>>>>>> In this way, it misses the fact that it is simulating an HHH >>>>>>>>> that would abort and halt. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>    printf("Fred Zwarts can't understand this is never reached\n"); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another claim without any evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olcott does not understand that his HHH does not see an infinite >>>>>>> loop. >>>>>>> It aborts and halt, so the recursion is finite. >>>>>> >>>>>> You didn't even use the term recursion correctly. >>>>>> Infinite loops have nothing to do with recursion. >>>>> >>>>> And infinite loops have nothing to do with a simulator simulating >>>>> itself. Therefore, talking about infinite loops is changing the >>>>> subject. >>>>> >>>>>> Mike understands that HHH could recognize an infinite >>>>>> loop correctly. >>>>>> >>>>>>     The process in which a function calls itself directly >>>>>>     or indirectly is called recursion and the corresponding >>>>>>     function is called a recursive function. >>>>>> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-recursion-2/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Lines 987 to 992 is where infinite loops are recognized >>>>>> Lines 996 to 1005 is where infinite recursion is recognized >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH correctly emulates the x86 machine code of its >>>>>> input until one of those two patterns is matched. >>>>> >>>>> But there is a bug in the code that tries to recognise an infinite >>>>> recursion. >>>> >>>> There is no bug. Quit your defamation. >>>> >>>>> It forgets to count the conditional branch instructions when >>>>> simulating the simulator. >>>> >>>> *It does not forget them. They are irrelevant* >>>> >>>> The question being asked is this: >>>> Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer >>>> HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement >>>> final halt state? >>> >>> Why would anyone ask that question or care about the answer? >> >> In computer science the only measure of halting ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========