Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 07:37:12 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <68dbf6ced1b8b7bcae3e6450ea8a844b63053952@i2pn2.org> 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: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:37:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3576491"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 11806 Lines: 210 On 2/10/25 6:51 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef olcott: >>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========