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: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 19:38:30 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <78b55671fea2137f368eff2eb059aa5a01f5132b@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: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 00:38:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="81938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9324 Lines: 142 On 2/14/25 6:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/14/2025 7:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:42 schreef olcott: >>> On 2/14/2025 3:36 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:12:52 -0600 schrieb 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: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> All of the people that think it should map the behavior of a non-input >>>>> have always been wrong. >>>> What is the non-input? >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>>    DD();    // Is not an input to HHH >>>    HHH(DD)  // Is an input to HHH >>> { >>> >>>> The input is DD, and its behaviour is that it halts. >>>> HHH’s simulation is not correct by definition. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> What is the difference in the finite string that describes the first >> DD and the finite string that describes the second DD? > > The directly executed DD only halts because HHH aborts its > simulated DD. And thus you admit that it halts, because the HHH that it calls, and thus is part of that DD. > > DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. > > But the HHH that "correctly simulates" DD, isn't the HHH that you have, so you are basing your logic on a lie.