Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:39:03 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <44e1cd844519e767bc32f5ccf951e61d72b4d979@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 16:39:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0d7b7e128809f1e0bad2050f21bb5c16"; logging-data="724403"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AUpxebc3y980Ie06gmo4J" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4P9hBYKY3BfvI4dtnY7eW8NgTvw= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250209-2, 2/9/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <44e1cd844519e767bc32f5ccf951e61d72b4d979@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 4376 On 2/9/2025 7:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/9/25 1:04 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/8/2025 3:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:43 schreef olcott: >>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 00:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>> Experts in the C programming language will know that DD >>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>> "if" statement. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it demonstrates the incapability of HHH to correctly determine >>>>> the halting behaviour of DD >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The finite string DD specifies non-terminating recursive >>>>>> simulation to simulating termination analyzer HHH. This >>>>>> makes HHH necessarily correct to reject its input as >>>>>> non-halting. >>>>> >>>>> The finite string defines one behaviour. This finite string, when >>>>> given to an X86 processor shows halting behaviour. This finite >>>>> string,when given to a world class simulator, shows halting >>>>> behaviour. Only HHH fails to see this proven halting behaviour. So >>>>> it proves the failure of HHH. >>>>> HHH aborts the simulation on unsound grounds one cycle before the >>>>> simulation would terminate 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); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>> has fully operational HHH and DD >>>>>> >>>>>> The halting problem has always been a mathematical mapping >>>>>> from finite strings to behaviors. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. And the behaviour of this finite string has been proven to >>>>> show halting behaviour. Only Olcott's HHH fails to see it. >>>>> His misunderstanding is that he thinks that the behaviour defined >>>>> by the finite string depends on the simulator. >>>> >>>> When DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation it is a >>>> verified fact that DD cannot possibly halt. >>> >>> Which proves the failure of HHH. It does not reach the end of a >>> halting program. All other methods show that DD halts. >>> >> >> Your comment only proves that you lack sufficient >> understanding of the C programming language. >> > > No, it proves your lack of sufficient understanding of what programs are. > It is an easily verified fact that the input to HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "if" statement when HHH is a simulating termination analyzer. This conclusively proves that the C function DD does not halt and can be correctly rejected as non-halting. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer