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 18:28:24 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 109 Message-ID: References: <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org> <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org> <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com> <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com> <86fbc35155fbcb3e88cf0dd069d16d61e16bcf4e.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 00:28:25 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52609e06aaa7487bac02a0c7f1caaa86"; logging-data="2278202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ji97HQf4P/gm8U2vNcD9E" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:YXKgizvpPf/+w8pTuWp8MWArut8= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5924 On 3/14/2025 1:01 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/14/2025 11:58 AM, wij wrote: >>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 11:33 -0500, 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. Actually solving the halting problem >>>> requires a program that is ALL KNOWING thus God like. >>> >>> I (GUR) had told you God cannot solve HP neither (maybe because the >>> problem is limited in a box) >>> >> >> When we define the HP as having H return a value >> corresponding to the halting behavior of input D >> and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever >> value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves >> in to a problem having no solution. >> > > > And that is EXACTLY what the halting problem is about: it is not > possible to construct an H where H(X,Y) reports whether X(Y) halts when > executed directly. > > A problem that you have now EXPLICITLY agreed is unsolvable.  So... > Likewise: What time is it (yes or no)? equally has no solution. That BOGUS problem instances have no solution places no actual limit on anything. I coined the term "incorrect question" years ago. https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/lSdYexJ0ozo/m/aDN9-TYLHwIJ -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer