Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The input to HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
 configurations +++
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:19:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <102mkpd$uef9$6@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6221b91da87b035b8621079cee4cf6a4dc4abe6@i2pn2.org>
 <1026s46$j3rp$4@dont-email.me> <10296qc$17rpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029le9$1ah2f$7@dont-email.me> <102bep1$1sc5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c2qk$20jl4$6@dont-email.me> <102h202$3dls5$1@dont-email.me>
 <102k0aa$793t$7@dont-email.me> <102m1bv$q6o0$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 16:19:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c51c271cf6eb0f34185f6df029618a8";
	logging-data="997865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/vUzUZRR1JKTGsZdP3Xas4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ybvr9NOerhRvB7Qz7UKCOzjy32c=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102m1bv$q6o0$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250615-2, 6/15/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/15/2025 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.jun.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/13/2025 6:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-11 14:11:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/11/2025 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-10 16:10:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 7:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 14:46:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>> specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
>>>>>>>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you think a partial simulation defines behavior?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do you get that LIE from?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am no so stupid that I require a complete
>>>>>>>> simulation of a non-terminating input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes you are. You just express your stupidity in another way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It only takes two simulations of DDD by HHH for HHH
>>>>>> to correctly recognize a non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Either the pattern or the recognition is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>> own "return" statement final halt state. This by itself
>>>> *is* complete proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. The words "cannot possibly" are not sufficiently
>>> meaningful to prove anything. HHH does what it does and does
>>> not what it does not. But what it can or cannot do, possiby or
>>> otherwise?
>>>
>>
>> It is required that one have the technical competence of
>> a first year CS student that knows C to understand that
>> it is self-evident that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>> behavior such that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>> possibly reach its simulated "return" statement.
> 
> Indeed, even a beginner will see that HHH fails to reach the end of the 
> simulation of a halting program. 

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

The criteria agreed to by the best selling author of theory
of computation textbooks disagrees.

>>
>> It is also required that one know that in computer science
>> halting means reaching a final halt state.
> 
> But preventing a program to halt (e.g. by turning off a computer, or 
> aborting a simulation) does not make a program non-halting.
> 
>>
>> If you have less technical competence than this then the
>> problem is your lack of technical competence.
>>
> 
> So, why do you continue if you do not even understand this?


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer