Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:39:33 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <0dc3e1fa80febc4f560a303d2ef614fe424fe31d@i2pn2.org> 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: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:39:33 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="349295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US On 2/16/25 7:58 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/16/2025 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 15.feb.2025 om 20:21 schreef olcott: >>> On 2/15/2025 2:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 22:18 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 2/14/2025 8:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:48 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 01:12 schreef 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bonita Montero >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If I close my eyes, so that I do not see the accident, I cannot >>>>>>>> claim that the accident did not happen. That is the reasoning of >>>>>>>> a 2 years old child. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH(DD) maps the finite string input of DD to the behavior that >>>>>>> it specifies. This behavior does include DD repeatedly calling >>>>>>> HHH(DD) >>>>>>> in recursive simulation that that cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>> normally. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Olcott is again dreaming of a HHH that does not abort. Dreams are >>>>>> no substitute for reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The simulating HHH aborts the simulation, closes its eyes and does >>>>>> not see that the simulated HHH also aborts so that the program >>>>>> terminates normally. >>>>>> >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========