Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME !!! Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:34:14 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 164 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 01:34:14 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="acd7d8b621134f06bcce511727667ddc"; logging-data="2651228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192lxyDCE91XedM5SKw9N/n" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ic6UcXSLyQgya0J0U7nBSqXse6o= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250219-10, 2/19/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8813 On 2/19/2025 4:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 18.feb.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott: >> On 2/18/2025 8:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 18.feb.2025 om 14:37 schreef olcott: >>>> On 2/18/2025 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 2/18/25 6:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 2/18/2025 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-02-17 09:05:42 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somewhere else >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination >>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any >>>>>>>>>>>>> input that >>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we >>>>>>>>>>>> *know* that >>>>>>>>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your cake >>>>>>>>>>>> and eat it >>>>>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts". >>>>>>>>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally". >>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does >>>>>>>>>> not imply >>>>>>>>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD >>>>>>>>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate abnormally >>>>>>>>>> itself? >>>>>>>>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not need >>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to >>>>>>>>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated >>>>>>>>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A very strange and invalid stipulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It merely means that the words do not have their ordinary meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless HHH(DD) aborts its simulation of DD itself cannot possibly >>>>>> terminate normally. Every expert in the C programming language >>>>>> can see this. People that are not experts get confused by the loop >>>>>> after the "if" statement. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So? Since it does that, it needs to presume that the copy of itself >>>>> it sees called does that. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not at all. Perhaps your technical skill is much more woefully >>>> deficient than I ever imagined. >>>> >>>> Here is the point that you just missed Unless the first HHH >>>> that sees the non-terminating pattern aborts its simulation >>>> none of them do because they all have the exact same code. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The point Olcott misses is that if the non-terminating HHH is changed >>> to abort the simulation, the program is changed. He does not >>> understand that a modification of a program makes a change. Such a >>> change modifies the behaviour of the program. The non-termination >>> behaviour has disappeared with this change and only remains in his >>> dreams. After this change, the simulation would terminate normally >>> and HHH should no longer abort. But it does, because the code that >>> detects the 'special condition' has a bug, which makes that it does >>> not see that the program has been changed into a halting program. >> >> >> When I focus on one single-point: >> I get two years of dodging and this point is never addressed. >> >> [DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally] >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> int main() >> { >>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion); >>    HHH(DDD); >> } >> > It is not true that this point has never been addressed. Olcott ignores > it when it is addressed. > > What is the point? Even if HHH fails to simulate the halting program DD > up to the end because it is logically impossible for it to complete the > simulation, it still fails. It fails In the same way that every CAD system will never correctly represent a geometric circle that has four equal length sides in the same two dimensional plane. > If the logically impossible cannot be done, > we can admit that HHH's simulation fails to complete the impossible task. > So, why is Olcott trying to fix the logically impossible? He could as > well try to draw a square circle. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========