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: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- ONE POINT AT A TIME !!! Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:15:15 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <5b553c883ae770f924972c3b6d17554f46cbd6ba@i2pn2.org> References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <442891e4193f52206ec1b8481f5c2688de58b305@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 12:15:16 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1245905"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8555 Lines: 127 On 2/21/25 10:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/20/2025 3:52 AM, joes wrote: >> 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. >> > > In the exact same way that the square root of > a basket of rotten eggs is not computable. > Yes, your "HHH" / "DD" pairing is just like a basked of rotten eggs. >>>> 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. > >