Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME !!! Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:52:55 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:52:55 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="914381"; 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: 8158 Lines: 118 Am Wed, 19 Feb 2025 18:34:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: > 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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] >>> >> 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. Yes, no program will ever decide the halting status of every program. >> 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. -- 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.