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: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:38:16 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <5fc586c20176b45ab27e9df482cfa08a8ae9a8e7@i2pn2.org> 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 01:38:17 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="240206"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11648 Lines: 184 On 2/15/25 2:21 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. >>>> >>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does >>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program >>>> terminates normally. >>>> >>> >>> It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that >>> (a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation >>> after itself is no longer being simulated. >>> >>> (b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========