Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 16:00:35 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 196 Message-ID: References: <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: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:00:35 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c928bd9eb52e5cb5acf316a3ad4e5e6d"; logging-data="830700"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zM/IRHovmN4SyKWvTjsur" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:PUeb5/WQrnkBmKSvQqno+2q4kug= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-4, 2/16/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 12695 On 2/16/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 16.feb.2025 om 13:58 schreef olcott: >> On 2/16/2025 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 15.feb.2025 om 20:21 schreef olcott: >>>> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it >>>>>>>>>>> cannot properly decide about its input, because  it must >>>>>>>>>>> abort the correct simulation before it sees that the correct >>>>>>>>>>> simulation terminates normally. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees >>>>>>>>>> by definition. it maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot >>>>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning >>>>>>>>> of a 2 years old child. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that >>>>>>>> it specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling >>>>>>>> HHH(DD) >>>>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are >>>>>>> no substitute for reasoning. >>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========