Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:14:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 181 Message-ID: <103h07f$2q86f$3@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me> <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <10399dl$jvs0$1@dont-email.me> <1039lft$n1od$3@dont-email.me> <103b30q$14nvb$1@dont-email.me> <103bpj3$1a3c8$2@dont-email.me> <103dljq$1sp55$1@dont-email.me> <103ebck$22250$2@dont-email.me> <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2a79ef080f15f5ebab8247a019f1c31b"; logging-data="2957519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zQDAuiVRGzeFBeXt/iIV3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mqM+v0YD03fBTlrf3n4INEUpYAQ= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <103g4rs$2jugs$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250625-2, 6/25/2025), Outbound message On 6/25/2025 1:27 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-24 14:06:12 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/24/2025 2:54 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 23.jun.2025 om 16:50 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 22.jun.2025 om 21:27 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/22/2025 11:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2025 om 16:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 4:28 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jun.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I challenge anyone to show the details of exactly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how DDD correctly simulated by ANY simulating termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer HHH can possibly reach its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state they ignore this challenge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems very difficult for you to read. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We clearly stated that the challenge is improper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you too stupid to understand that dogmatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions that are utterly bereft of any supporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning DO NOT COUNT AS REBUTTALS ??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are too stupid to realise that challenging for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipe to draw a square circle does not count as a proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that square circles exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Claiming that I made a mistake with no ability to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show this mistake is DISHONEST. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, but irrelevant, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That alternative is that you are dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you claim that I am wrong and have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> no ability to show how and where I am wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this would seem to make you a liar. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has ever even attempted to show the details >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of how this is not correct: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by ANY simulating termination analyzer HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then this correctly simulated DDD never reaches its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated "return" statement final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even >>>>>>>>>>>>> though the end is only one cycle further from the point >>>>>>>>>>>>> where it gave up the simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again? >>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort >>>>>>>>>>> and halt, the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the >>>>>>>>>>> simulating HHH, so that when the simulating HHH aborts, the >>>>>>>>>>> simulated HHH is only one cycle away from the same point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is. >>>>>>>>>> First year CS students and EE majors may not understand this. >>>>>>>>>> All CS graduates would understand this. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That you do not understand what I write makes it difficult for >>>>>>>>> you to learn from your errors. >>>>>>>>> It is not that difficult. Try again and pay full attention to it. >>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and >>>>>>>>> halt, >>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so >>>>>>>>> that when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only >>>>>>>>> one cycle away from the same point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes this is factual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *This is only ordinary computer programming with* >>>>>>>> *no theory of computation computer science required* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator >>>>>>>> no matter how deep the recursive simulations go. This means >>>>>>>> that the outermost directly executed HHH reaches its abort >>>>>>>> criteria first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And it fails to see that the simulated HHH would reach exactly >>>>>>> the same abort criteria one cycle later. >>>>>>> In this way, it misses the fact that it is simulating an HHH that >>>>>>> would abort and halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>    printf("Fred Zwarts can't understand this is never reached\n"); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>> Another claim without any evidence. >>>>> >>>>> Olcott does not understand that his HHH does not see an infinite loop. >>>>> It aborts and halt, so the recursion is finite. >>>> >>>> You didn't even use the term recursion correctly. >>>> Infinite loops have nothing to do with recursion. >>> >>> And infinite loops have nothing to do with a simulator simulating >>> itself. Therefore, talking about infinite loops is changing the subject. >>> >>>> Mike understands that HHH could recognize an infinite >>>> loop correctly. >>>> >>>>     The process in which a function calls itself directly >>>>     or indirectly is called recursion and the corresponding >>>>     function is called a recursive function. >>>> https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-recursion-2/ >>>> >>>> Lines 987 to 992 is where infinite loops are recognized >>>> Lines 996 to 1005 is where infinite recursion is recognized >>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>> >>>> HHH correctly emulates the x86 machine code of its >>>> input until one of those two patterns is matched. >>> >>> But there is a bug in the code that tries to recognise an infinite >>> recursion. >> >> There is no bug. Quit your defamation. >> >>> It forgets to count the conditional branch instructions when >>> simulating the simulator. >> >> *It does not forget them. They are irrelevant* >> >> The question being asked is this: >> Can DDD correctly simulated by any termination analyzer >> HHH that can possibly exist reach its own "return" statement >> final halt state? > > Why would anyone ask that question or care about the answer? > In computer science the only measure of halting is reaching a final halt state. Stopping running for any other reason does not count as halting. int DD() { int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); if (Halt_Status) ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========