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: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 22:40:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 133 Message-ID: References: <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org> <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org> <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com> <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 04:41:00 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="089deb6da5a8e3479213476df9745f18"; logging-data="2779140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zl2dzYYhlKWlSgIWuAR1V" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TlBuF928el4Nphg7QUyiSn5KpFg= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 7094 On 3/14/2025 8:56 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/14/2025 9:49 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/14/2025 8:34 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/14/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/14/2025 8:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 3/14/2025 8:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/14/2025 12:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/14/2025 12:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/14/2025 11:01 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 10:51 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/14/2025 10:04 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:>> >>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>      HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>      return; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>> its own "return" instruction in any finite number of >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated steps. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That you are clueless about the semantics of something >>>>>>>>>>>> as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not >>>>>>>>>>>> competent to review my work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem >>>>>>>>>>> of determining, from a description of >>>>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program >>>>>>>>>>> will finish running, or continue to >>>>>>>>>>> run >>>>>>>>>>> forever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That means: H(D)=1 if D() halts and H(D)=0 if D() does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my >>>>>>>>>>> level, .... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>     return; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only difference between HHH and HHH1 is that they are >>>>>>>>>> at different locations in memory. DDD simulated by HHH1 >>>>>>>>>> has identical behavior to DDD() directly executed in main(). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies >>>>>>>>>> that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies >>>>>>>>>> to simulate to DDD exactly once. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite >>>>>>>>>> string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When HHH(DDD) is required to report on behavior other than >>>>>>>>>> the behavior that its finite string specifies HHH is not >>>>>>>>>> a decider thus not a halt decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All deciders are required to compute the mapping from >>>>>>>>>> their input finite string to the semantic or syntactic property >>>>>>>>>> that this string specifies. Deciders return true when this >>>>>>>>>> string specifies this property otherwise they return false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have only correctly refuted the conventional halting >>>>>>>> problem proof. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what exactly do you think this proof is proving?  More >>>>>>> specifically, what do you think the Linz proof is proving? >>>>>> >>>>>> All of the proofs merely show that there cannot >>>>>> possibly exist any halt decider that returns a >>>>>> value corresponding to the behavior of any input >>>>>> that is actually able to do the opposite of whatever >>>>>> value is returned. >>>>>> >>>>> Not exactly.  What they prove is that no H exists that satisfies >>>>> these requirements: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of >>>>> instructions) X described as with input Y: >>>>> >>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes >>>>> the following mapping: >>>>> >>>>> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>> directly >>>>> >>>> >>>> The executed directly part is bogus as I have >>>> shown and your indoctrination blindly ignores. >>>> >>> >>> But I want to know if any arbitrary X with input Y halts when >>> executed directly, >> >> Even when some inputs are BOGUS. >> > > Did I stutter? > > I want to know if any arbitrary X with input Y halts when executed If you reject "ls;dlfm skdofdfn 894&49.8244bewr" as a syntactically incorrect input then you are being inconsistent when you fail to reject semantically incorrect inputs. > directly.  If I had an H that could tell me that in *all* possible > cases, I could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved > problems. > > Does an H exist that can tell me that or not? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer