Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 09. Jun 2024, 17:07:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/9/2024 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:
*You must know the C programming language to understand this*
typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
01   void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
02   {
03     P(I);
04     return;
05   }
06
07   void DDD(int (*x)())
08   {
09     HHH(x, x);
10     return;
11   }
12
13   int main()
14   {
15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
16   }
17
*The truth preserving transformations are anchored in the*
*semantics of the C programming language that specifies*
line 15 of main executes HHH(DDD,DDD);
line 03 of HHH  executes DDD(DDD)
line 09 of DDD  executes HHH(DDD,DDD);
This can be summed up as simply comprehending
infinite recursion <is> the proof that
In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their
own return statement thus never halt.
It is the exact same process that HH(DD,DD) recognizes
this exact same infinite recursion behavior pattern.
Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD)
aborts its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
That is not the case. In the theory of computation "halting"
essentially means "terminated normally" in software engineering.
When HHH is a simulating halt decider just like HH then
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally

 When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
own return statement, AKA
     simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
    until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
    stop running unless aborted
 *as defined here*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then
    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
 
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
9 Jun 24 * Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt27olcott
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt26olcott
9 Jun 24  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt25joes
9 Jun 24   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt24olcott
9 Jun 24    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt23joes
10 Jun 24     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt22olcott
10 Jun 24      +* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt19Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i`* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt18olcott
10 Jun 24      i `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt17Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i  `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt16olcott
10 Jun 24      i   `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt15Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i    `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt14olcott
10 Jun 24      i     `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt13Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i      `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case12olcott
10 Jun 24      i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case7Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case6olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case5Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case2olcott
10 Jun 24      i       i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case4Alan Mackenzie
10 Jun 24      i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years3olcott
10 Jun 24      i         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1joes
12 Jun 24      i         `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24      `* Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt2joes
10 Jun 24       `- Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal