Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:53:46 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8be76c6ce027ec61028d5081e95717b145b70f24@i2pn2.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:53:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1906"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7093 Lines: 105 Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:20:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/13/25 7:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/13/2025 4:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 17:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 10:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott many times, but he refuses to learn. So, again: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie >>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally >>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This main is a program that includes all functions called >>>>>>>>>>>> directly and indirectly, including HHH. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not >>>>>>>>>> simulate that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() is not the same instance of main() >>>>>>>>> that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting the >>>>>>>>> simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything else >>>>>>>>> aborting the simulation of its input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That cannot possibly work. The executed HHH always sees at least >>>>>>> one more full execution trace than any inner HHH ever sees. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed, that is what I said, but Olcott deleted it in the citation. >>>>>> HHH cannot do what it should do. So, he proves the halting theorem. >>>>> >>>>> If the sentence it false it does not become true in some greater >>>>> context. >>>> >>>> Indeed and since it is false that the simulated HHH would not abort, >>> >>> This is simply beyond your skill level. >>> Since each HHH is exactly the same unless the first one aborts none of >>> them do. >>> >> But the first one DOES abort, as that is how it was defined to be. >> >> And thus, the one that DD calls aborts. >> > A program that is no longer being simulated DOES NOTHING Hey, let me prove all programs are no-ops, by NOT SIMULATING THEM MWAHAHA -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.