Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:43:05 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 106 Message-ID: <1042req$a6mb$2@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me> <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me> <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me> <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me> <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103ga9l$2l4he$1@dont-email.me> <103gvur$2q86f$2@dont-email.me> <103j359$3bke5$1@dont-email.me> <103n9i8$e9sp$2@dont-email.me> <103oad3$oscg$2@dont-email.me> <103op4b$rq7e$4@dont-email.me> <103r53b$2due$2@dont-email.me> <103rg3o$1hc53$5@dont-email.me> <103tf1v$4j97$2@dont-email.me> <103ug9q$292c0$4@dont-email.me> <1040947$7a12$3@dont-email.me> <1040l6t$2rk1l$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94c83e0600917e76556ff17dba76f9bb"; logging-data="334539"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EeblbmwLAoSy8T958S/jD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZZ6QFqxp5JFV0cYNXpbfjLe+9rw= In-Reply-To: <1040l6t$2rk1l$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 01.jul.2025 om 14:44 schreef olcott: > On 7/1/2025 4:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 30.jun.2025 om 19:08 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/30/2025 2:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 29.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/29/2025 5:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 15:02 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2025 3:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2025 om 01:30 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2025 4:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 25.jun.2025 om 16:09 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 24.jun.2025 om 16:06 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> None of the code in HHH can possibly cause DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HHH to reach its own simulated "return" statement. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, exactly, that is the bug. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recursive emulation is only a tiny bit more complicated >>>>>>>>> than recursion yet no one here seems to have a clue. >>>>>>>>> Do you know what recursion is? >>>>>>>>> (If you don't that would explain a lot) >>>>>>>> As usual irrelevant claims without evidence. No rebuttal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah so you don't know what recursion is. >>>>>> >>>>>> As usual a false claim without evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH has a bug that makes that it does not recognise the halting >>>>>>>> behaviour of the program specified in the input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't even know what recursion is then >>>>>>> you are totally unqualified to review these things. >>>>>> >>>>>> And since the condition in the 'if' fails, the conclusion is not >>>>>> true. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even a beginner can see that the input is a pointer to code, >>>>>>>> including the code to abort and halt. But HHH is programmed to >>>>>>>> ignore the conditional branch instructions, when simulating >>>>>>>> itself, so it thinks that there is an infinite loop when there >>>>>>>> are only a finite number of recursions. >>>>>>>> But Olcott does not understand that not all recursions are >>>>>>>> infinite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the measure is whether or not DDD correctly >>>>>>> simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own "return" >>>>>>> instruction final halt state nothing inside HHH can >>>>>>> possibly have any effect on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you don't know this proves that you are unqualified >>>>>>> to review my work. >>>>>> The failure of HHH is an incorrect measure for the halting >>>>>> behaviour specified in the input. >>>>>> That you do not understand this explains your invalid claims. >>>>>> The halting behaviour of the input can be analysed by several >>>>>> other methods and they show that HHH is incorrect in its analysis. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No Turing machine can ever report on the behavior of >>>>> any directly executing Turing Machine because no TM >>>>> can ever take another directly executing Turing Machine >>>>> as its input. >>>> There is no need to report about another Turing Machine. >>> >>> The conventional halting problem proof incorrectly requires this. >>> >> >> >> As usual repeated claims without evidence. >> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    DDD(); >>> } >>> >>> When the input to HHH(DDD) is correctly simulated >>> by HHH then HHH correctly rejects this input as >>> specifying non-halting behavior. >> >> No, it *incorrectly* does that. The input is DDD calling an aborting >> HHH, so the input specifies a halting program. >> > > DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly > reach its own "return" instruction final halt state > that DOES NOT HALT TO MATTER WHAT THE F YOU CALL IT. > As usual claims without evidence. (Shouting is no evidence.) The input for HHH has code to abort and halt, so this input specifies a halting program. If HHH fails to reach that final halt state, that does not change the specification. The input specifies a halting program, no matter what HHH can see of it.