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 20:49:17 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 114 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 02:49:19 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="089deb6da5a8e3479213476df9745f18"; logging-data="2537802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3OBiRVaEK2XO1UVQvv6jK" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:OKoSIUcrboha428VFqkS3ahL1kI= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6269 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer