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: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 07:57:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 154 Message-ID: <1048j4b$qd4f$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$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2025 14:57:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2319a93962571e26e47ed601564be69"; logging-data="865423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hjH8gVoC6j0t3UsyD9u2e" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9GbBAxltmoB/UMzbfsMX2sGi+5c= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250704-2, 7/4/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <10480ld$nasn$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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. > Therefore their execution > trace cannot be derived withing the semantics of the C probramming > language. Conseqeuntly, to derive the excution trace of any program > calling them cannot be derived within the semantics of the C programming > language. > *All the chatbots figure out* HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) until HHH aborts its simulation because it correctly recognized a non-halting behavior pattern. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer