Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Followup-To: comp.theory Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 22:43:34 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 128 Message-ID: References: <247d795c20365feb849ed3911fdff318bcec74b0@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 05:43:36 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="55615c65eddb2f78b0e126c64450bd72"; logging-data="1071450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Gyp4aTZj8jopqpT5VBgNx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:M94n0loNCZIvtcro0OA6eXTuXq0= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-6, 2/16/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <247d795c20365feb849ed3911fdff318bcec74b0@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6762 On 2/16/2025 7:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/16/25 5:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/16/2025 3:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 2/16/25 2:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>> about that >>>>>>>>>>>>> paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line >>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can >>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a >>>>>>>>>>> truism. >>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge >>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is >>>>>>>>>> false I >>>>>>>>>> will point out the error. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Step 1: Find people who know C. >>>>>>>>> Step 2: Show them DD of OP and ask. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is the only topic that I will discuss and any >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Technically a decider is any TM that always stops running. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(Turing_machine) >>>> >>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer. >>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input >>>> that must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Right, but the answer given by the decider must match the problem. >>> >> >> Any divergence from the above specification is stipulated >> to be incorrect. > > In other words, you are ADMITTING you have no idea of the actual > problem, and think people are interested in your strawman. > > The WORLD will reject any divergence from the actual specification, > leaving you out in the dark just admitting you are a moron. > >> >> *This is the pathological input termination analyzer problem* >> Some people might see this as isomorphic to other problems >> and some people may not see this. >> > > In other words, you are just now admitting you have been LYING for > decades, because you were too stupid to understand what you were > claiming you were working. > > Glad you finally admitted it. > > The POOP theory is admitted to be just a pile of shit that you made up, > and says NOTHING about the real Halting Problem that you are admitting > is too "complecated" for you to undetstand. > > Sorry, that is the facts of what you just said. I am stipulating that I have solved the simulating termination analyzer pathological input problem. Some people will see a remarkable similarity to the halting problem proofs, and some will not. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer