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: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:41:42 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org> <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org> <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:41:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4114067"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7631 Lines: 98 On 2/13/25 7:31 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb 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 >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete its simulation, because HHH is unable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH generates false negatives, as is verified in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               int main() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                 return HHH(main); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>               } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH until its normal termination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where HHH is >>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct value. >>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a correct >>>>>>>>>>> value as soon as it correctly determines that its input cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts according >>>>>>>>>> to spec, so does the inner, because it is the same. Therefore it >>>>>>>>>> can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If the inner HHH >>>>>>>>>> doesn’t halt, it is not a decider. >>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that. >>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections. >>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute >>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot >>> possible terminate normally. >> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH. >> >>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next month >>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will totally >>> ignore anything that diverges from the point. >> Ok, I will wait a month then. >> > > Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows > that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. > No, they know that your HHH doesn;t correct simulate its input. Also, per your definitions, NEITHER HHH or DD qualify as a "program" per Computation Theory, so your whole claim is a lie. (Neither of them, as you have specified them is a pure function of just its input). Sorry, you are just proving your are nothing but an ignorant lying fraud that doesn't care about the truth.