Sujet : Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. Feb 2025, 13:02:48
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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 wrote:
Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>
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.
Here is the code point out the (nonexistent) error:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c#L502
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…