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 19:38:33 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org> <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org> <95eccf38ab5f4aa6ef0e390109c9a96be413b6fb@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 00:38:33 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="81938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10634 Lines: 167 On 2/14/25 6:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 2/14/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/14/25 7:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot >>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of a 2 >>>> years old child. >>> >>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that it >>> specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling HHH(DD) >>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate normally. >> >> And the mapping needs to be the "Halting Function" or HHH just isn't a >> correct Halt Decider. >> > > DD correctly simulated  by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. > changing the subject way from this in the slightest trace of a > degree is deceptive. > The problem is your HHH doesn't do that, so your are baseing your logic on a LIE. You don't understand what a "Program" which just breaks all your logic, as you need HHH to be two different things at once, which is just the contradiction that blows up your logic. Your use of incorrect definitions just proves your utter stupidity. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========