Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko 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 09:27:08 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 158 Message-ID: <103g4rs$2jugs$1@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 08:27:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a798bbd48321c24c69c0ea3fd3091555"; logging-data="2751004"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MaTmp6CDTRkEA2+Z/61vb" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:i26ZvyMdOMheKijr4w0jKzh9rbI= 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? -- Mikko