Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 19:54:07 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 170 Message-ID: References: <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org> <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org> <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org> <274abb70abec9d461ac3eb34c0980b7421f5fabd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2025 19:54:11 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="930e93f17dee4a9dc5233f5584449d33"; logging-data="823646"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ypRnhIVD7/FQmKTcLgD7T" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:fOpjWF0O63U7qhSoyAakjTZGI9c= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9234 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 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much higher >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that isn't the question being asked. The quesiton you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NEED to ask is will the program described by the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt when run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just faulty. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (lack of) understanding. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that mapping is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the program the string describes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the progran being run. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote >>>>>>>>>>>>> as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that *IS* the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite >>>>>>>>>>> strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings >>>>>>>>>>> specify. That this is not dead obvious to everyone here >>>>>>>>>>> merely proves that learned-by-rote does not involve any >>>>>>>>>>> actual comprehension. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And the behavior the finite string specifies is the behavior >>>>>>>>>> of running the program. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is verifiably factually incorrect. >>>>>>>>> The running program has a different execution trace >>>>>>>>> than the behavior that DD specifies to HHH. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If so, then it proves the failure of the simulation. The >>>>>>>> simulation aborts too soon on unsound grounds, one cycle before >>>>>>>> the normal termination of the program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This proves that you simply don't have sufficient >>>>>>> understanding of the C programming language. >>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally >>>>>>> is a verified fact. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> You lack the ability to do the execution trace >>>>> of HHH simulating DD calling HHH(DD) simulating DD... >>>> >>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete its >>>> simulation, because HHH is unable to simulate itself. >>>> >>> >>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>> The above code proves that HHH does simulate itself simulating DD. >>> >>> That you can't understand this code proves that you lack the >>> technical basis to review my work. >>> >> >> 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. > > If you try to explain your view in terms of a line-by-line > execution trace of DD simulated by HHH everyone will see that > your claim has no actual basis what-so-ever and is merely > utterly baseless rhetoric totally bereft of any supporting > reasoning. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========