Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake and Liars
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:47:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <vqud4e$36e14$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me> <vqqq7s$29buv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqrin$28lh2$4@dont-email.me> <vqs9ck$2lqb2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:47:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="994dc4980cf59054a36339a8e5c96216";
	logging-data="3356708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ffcbRwmazLdOSxJBc91m0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/sffv0ll9D9N///pOglUoGoIzwk=
In-Reply-To: <vqs9ck$2lqb2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 12.mrt.2025 om 16:31 schreef olcott:
> On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 02:06, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't 
>>>>> terminate. Look up "infinite".
>>>>>
>>>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. That, 
>>>>> as you are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you can't get 
>>>>> out of it. The whole point of the Entscheidungsproblem is its 
>>>>> universality. Ignore that, and you have nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0, 
>>>
>>> THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
>>> WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR
>>
>>
>> "THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR 
>> A LIAR"?
>>
>> Is that all you've got? Nothing on your function's inability to 
>> correctly decide on whether arbitrary input programs terminate, which 
>> is a ***stipulated*** requirement for the problem.
>>
>> Without that, all you have is loud.
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>> simulated steps.
>>
>> Look up "infinite". You keep using that word. I do not think it means 
>> what you think it means.
>>
> 
> When N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by every element
> of the set of C functions named HHH that do x86 emulation and
> 
> N is each element of the set of natural numbers
> 
> then no DDD of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever reaches its
> "return" instruction and terminates normally.
> 


In other words no HHH of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever succeeds to 
complete the simulation of a halting program. Failure to reach the end 
of a halting program is not a great success. If all HHH in this set 
fail, it would be better to change your mind and start working on 
something more useful.