Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 09:02:49 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 198 Message-ID: <104gk29$2uc68$4@dont-email.me> References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de> <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me> <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me> <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me> <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me> <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org> <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me> <88bb43aca42ffc4a59d979c4c4f50441ce57b385@i2pn2.org> <10464n1$6cra$1@dont-email.me> <75c102da6bc85c8677b0a126d3d6f13c5018ae9c@i2pn2.org> <10466v2$7e0u$1@dont-email.me> <10480ld$nasn$1@dont-email.me> <1048j4b$qd4f$4@dont-email.me> <104akb7$jhv7$2@dont-email.me> <104bi5m$1hqln$9@dont-email.me> <104df2q$231m5$1@dont-email.me> <104e329$2852a$4@dont-email.me> <104g09p$2r0ur$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 16:02:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b8546c5fedfaaedc96332a808ca8671"; logging-data="3092680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TQ/YhH81Yx41h/5UGvwaI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KnfYVU1IpPhIHhGOWku31ROVlWc= In-Reply-To: <104g09p$2r0ur$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250707-2, 7/7/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US On 7/7/2025 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-07-06 15:00:25 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/6/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-07-05 15:59:50 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 7/5/2025 2:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 04.jul.2025 om 14:57 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 15:17:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/3/2025 9:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/3/25 10:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2025 9:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/25 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PO just works off the lie that a correct simulation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different than the direct execution, even though he can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> show the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction actually correctly simulated where they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> differ, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves he is lying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The closest he comes is claiming that the simulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Call HHH" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be different when simulated then when executed, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for "some >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason" it must be just because otherwise HHH can't do the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, not being able to do something doesn't mean you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You ar4e just showing you are as stupid as he is. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to >>>>>>>>>>>>> completion if it can >>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The most direct way to analyze this is that >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are both correct >>>>>>>>>>>> because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation and >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope. It seems you don't understand what the question >>>>>>>>>>> actually IS because you have just lied to yourself so much >>>>>>>>>>> that you lost the understanding of the queiston. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *I can't imagine how Mike does not get this* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can't understand >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue* >>>>>>>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue* >>>>>>>>>>>> *Context of above dialogue* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Context of your context: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A Halt Decider is supposed to decide if the program given to >>>>>>>>>>> it (via some correct representation) will halt when run. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thus, "the input" needs to represent a program >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which, by itself, isn't a valid input, or program. as HHH is >>>>>>>>>>> undefined. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each different definition of HHH, gives a different problem. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your "logic" seems to be based on trying to re-define what a >>>>>>>>>>> program is, which just makes it a lie. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Programs" must be complete and self-contained in the field >>>>>>>>>>> of computability theory, something you don't seem to understand. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until >>>>>>>>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When >>>>>>>>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> and returns 0. (HHH1 has identical code) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it CAN'T simulate the above input. as it isn't valid. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You need to add the code of HHH to the input to let HHH >>>>>>>>>>> simulate "the input" to get anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No I do not. The above paragraph has every detail that is needed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then how do you correctly simulate something you do not have. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note, your "description" of HHH is just incorrect, as it is >>>>>>>>> also incomplete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simulating a LIE just gives you a lie. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And at that point, you have different inputs for different >>>>>>>>>>> HHHs, and possibly different behaviors, which you logic >>>>>>>>>>> forgets to take into account, which just breaks it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>>>>>> It is because the what I specified does take this >>>>>>>>>> into account that HHH(DDD)==0 and HHH1(DDD)==1 are correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, becausee it violates the DEFINITION of what it means to >>>>>>>>> simulate something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You don't even know what you mean by this* >>>>>>>> What I mean is the execution trace that is derived >>>>>>>> within the semantics of the C programming language. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C lanbuage definition does not specifiy the senatics of the non- >>>>>>> standard >>>>>>> lanugage extension that your HHH and HHH1 use. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is the ONLY specification of HHH that chatbots see* >>>>>> Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until >>>>>> it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When >>>>>> HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation >>>>>> and returns 0. >>>>> >>>>> There is no non-termination behaviour to detect, because the input >>>>> specifies only a *finite* recursion. >>>> >>>> When DDD is infinitely simulated by HHH it never reaches >>> >>> When DDD is infinitely simulated by HHH that HHH never answers correctly >>> (or otherwise) and therefore is not a halting decider. >> >> So by a kind of mathematical induction HHH correctly >> predicts that DDD simulated by HHH (according to the >> semantics of the C programming language) cannot possibly ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========