Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 17:50:03 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 150 Message-ID: References: <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org> <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org> <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org> <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 17:50:06 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33"; logging-data="770235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18vUtVwdt7zipB8mbr657w0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:e2CGnPZUPjoPTKLbMfAOFbe4O4A= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8153 Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott: > On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott: >>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't the question being asked. The quesiton you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEED to ask is will the program described by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt when run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just faulty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (lack of) understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mapping is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program the string describes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the progran being run. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote >>>>>>>>>>> as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, that *IS* the definition. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite >>>>>>>>> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings >>>>>>>>> specify. That this is not dead obvious to everyone here >>>>>>>>> merely proves that learned-by-rote does not involve any >>>>>>>>> actual comprehension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the behavior the finite string specifies is the behavior of >>>>>>>> running the program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is verifiably factually incorrect. >>>>>>> The running program has a different execution trace >>>>>>> than the behavior that DD specifies to HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If so, then it proves the failure of the simulation. The >>>>>> simulation aborts too soon on unsound grounds, one cycle before >>>>>> the normal termination of the program. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This proves that you simply don't have sufficient >>>>> understanding of the C programming language. >>>>> DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>> is a verified fact. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct decision about DD's >>>> halting behaviour. All other methods (direct execution, simulation >>>> by a world class simulator, etc.) show that DD halts. But HHH fails >>>> to see it. Everyone with sufficient understanding of programming >>>> sees that HHH is not correctly programmed when it aborts one cycle >>>> before the simulation would end normally. >>> >>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>> int HHH(ptr P); >>> >>> int DD() >>> { >>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>    return Halt_Status; >>> } >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>>    HHH(DD); >>> } >>> >>> You lack the ability to do the execution trace >>> of HHH simulating DD calling HHH(DD) simulating DD... >> >> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete its >> simulation, because HHH is unable to simulate itself. >> > > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c > The above code proves that HHH does simulate itself simulating DD. > > That you can't understand this code proves that you lack the > technical basis to review my work. > It turns out that Olcott does not even understand this simple proof that HHH produces false negatives. HHH is unable to simulate itself up to the normal termination.