Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:54:15 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: References: <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org> <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 00:54:17 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="49a7b1e260930a7dc625a6fb83875212"; logging-data="3880590"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Yg23e0N/Eev9NJTRfBr5L" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cMo2EW6GoJJbFn9ibv3GkIDIV/8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250214-6, 2/14/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 2/14/2025 7:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:42 schreef olcott: >> On 2/14/2025 3:36 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:12:52 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision about DD's halting behaviour. All other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods (direct execution, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. Everyone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with sufficient understanding of programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH is not correctly programmed when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts one cycle before the simulation would end >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to complete its simulation, because HHH is unable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this simple proof that HHH produces false negatives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate itself up to the normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts. HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates false negatives, as is verified in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                int main() { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  return HHH(main); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH until its normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct value. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct value as soon as it correctly determines that its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input cannot possibly terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to spec, so does the inner, because it is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inner HHH doesn’t halt, it is not a decider. >>>>>>>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that. >>>>>>>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject corrections. >>>>>>>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute >>>>>>>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>> cannot possible terminate normally. >>>>>>> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next >>>>>>>> month >>>>>>>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will >>>>>>>> totally ignore anything that diverges from the point. >>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD >>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot >>>>> properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct >>>>> simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates >>>>> normally. >>>>> >>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition. it >>>> maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT. >>>> All of the people that think it should map the behavior of a non-input >>>> have always been wrong. >>> What is the non-input? >> >> int main() >> { >>    DD();    // Is not an input to HHH >>    HHH(DD)  // Is an input to HHH >> { >> >>> The input is DD, and its behaviour is that it halts. >>> HHH’s simulation is not correct by definition. >>> >> >> > > What is the difference in the finite string that describes the first DD > and the finite string that describes the second DD? The directly executed DD only halts because HHH aborts its simulated DD. DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer