Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 11:22:00 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:22:01 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="27dfbdb5e85eed1fb9c73d9383ad7d01"; logging-data="1810523"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UHZ4/bae7wmNoQO3bHzxZ" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xehx3jR6HJ7oDTPS3uVsscrCTyI= Bytes: 4511 On 2025-02-10 11:53:48 +0000, olcott said: > On 2/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-02-09 15:21:57 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 2/9/2025 3:48 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-08 14:43:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The word "cannot" is not compatible with the meaning of the word "fact". >>>> That "DD cannot possibly halt" is not a fact. A fact may be that "DD has >>>> not halted in any test so far". >>> >>> Cannot possibly halt in the same way that an infinite >>> loop cannot possibly halt. >> >> I.e., an inference, not a fact. > > void Infinite_Loop() > { > HERE: goto HERE; > return; > } > > It is more than a fact it is a truism. A truism is not more than a fact. It is just a different thing. >>> That you don't understand >>> the C programming language well enough to see this counts >>> as no rebuttal what-so-ever. >> >> It is a sin to present a false claim about another person. > > Then quit doing it. I can remind you that it is a sin but I can't prevent you from doing it. Anyway, this is not relevant to the observation that the claim on the subject claim is false. -- Mikko