Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid Mistake or Liars Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:14:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <0e710a3da76b08e532d6bbc56c3661ff0a0d9d92@i2pn2.org> <6378173d7e3d4629202da0afd62043e20b9e13d9@i2pn2.org> <9917d816e9bb08ba18b6d66967e998773d161eba@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 23:14:02 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="68a78fe0d7aedba21d004274bc972a22"; logging-data="2278202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oO2eaxcuHJnm4YVq94gZi" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:SJbVy6vaDGZchIaqXOVjsY8j20M= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: On 3/14/2025 3:02 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:58:39 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/14/2025 10:55 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:13:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 3/14/2025 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/13/25 11:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/13/2025 10:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/13/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 6:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/13/25 9:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2025 6:18 AM, Dan Cross wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article , >>>>>>>>>>> Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 12.mrt.2025 om 16:31 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>>>> But a complete emulation can? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but an HHH that gives an answer doesn't do one, due to the >>>>>>> pathological design of the template used to build DD to the HHH it >>>>>>> calls (which is the only HHH that can exist, or you have violated >>>>>>> the basic rules of programing and logic). >>>>>>> We have two basic cases, >>>>>>> 1) if HHH does the partial emulation you describe, then the >>>>>>> complete emulation of DD will see that DD call HHH, and it will >>>>>>> emulate its input for a while, then abort and theu return 0 to DD >>>>>>> which will then halt. >>>>>> int main() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); // No DDD can possibly ever return. >>>>>> } >>>>> Since HHH doesn;t call DDD, the statement is vacuous and shows a >>>>> fundamental ignorance of what is being talked about. > >>> Important distinction. > > >>>>> Yes, No HHH can emulated DDD to the end, but since halting is DEFINED >>>>> by the behavior of the program, and for every HHH that aborts and >>>>> returns, the program of DDD, as tested with: >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>    DDD() >>>>> } >>>>> will return to main, that shows that every HHH that returns 0 fails >>>>> to be a Halt Decider or Termination Analyzer. PERIOD.. >>>> 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() executed in main(). > >>> Oh, I thought it was an unconditional simulator. The same code cannot >>> produce different behaviour. > > >>>> 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. >>> No. DDD always specifies the one same thing. >> counter-factual 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. > Uh no, there is only one call in either case. DD doesn't specify shit > "to HHH"; it doesn't know about its runtime environment. Even though DDD does not know it is calling its own simulator and HHH does not know that DDD is calling itself, it remains a verified fact that DDD simulated by HHH does not halt because it is calling its own simulator in recursive simulation. > >> 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(). > Now *that* is impossible if I swapped their addresses. Not that you > could tell. > If you swapped the address that is encoded in DDD then HHH1(DDD) would return 0 and HHH(DDD) would return 1. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer