Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:35:20 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <25a1ce93a966107c8ca012d2e26fadd31f37365a@i2pn2.org> References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103onmp$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> <104gk29$2uc68$4@dont-email.me> <104ihnn$3eee9$1@dont-email.me> <104j97d$3jrpl$2@dont-email.me> <104l9fb$5428$1@dont-email.me> <104loa2$7l4q$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 01:35:20 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4117867"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <104loa2$7l4q$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 7/9/25 8:45 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-07-08 14:16:13 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/8/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-07-07 14:02:49 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========