Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

Op 18.feb.2025 om 04:54 schreef olcott:

On 2/17/2025 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 2/17/25 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/17/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.feb.2025 om 18:11 schreef olcott:

On 2/17/2025 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.feb.2025 om 15:06 schreef olcott:

On 2/17/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:00 schreef olcott:

On 2/16/2025 2:16 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.feb.2025 om 13:58 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
It is only your lack of technical competence that makes it seem that
(a) The simulated HHH aborts its simulation
after itself is no longer being simulated.
>
(b) Either the outermost HHH aborts its simulation
of none of them do.

Which does not change the fact that simulating HHH does not see that the simulated HHH would also abort,

>
The simulated HHH cannot possibly abort because it can't possibly
get to the point where it sees that it needs to abort because it
is aborted before it gets to this point.

>
Exactly! So the simulating HHH fails to reach the point where the simulated HHH aborts and halts. The simulating misses in this way relevant details of the program given in its input. That is the reason why it fails. It is unable to see the whole input, because it gets stuck in recursive simulation of itself.
>

>
This is all moot because the executed HHH recognizes this
pattern and correctly reports that its input cannot possibly
terminate normally.
>

>
It only reports that the simulation was aborted. Not more, not less.

>
That you do not understand the term: "terminates normally"
is far less than no rebuttal at all.
>

>
So we (Olcott and me) agree that HHH cannot possibly simulate up to the normal termination of the program described by the finite string.

>
Good.
>

However, Olcott fails to see that it is a failure of HHH to be unable to simulate a halting program up to the end.
>

>
What most everyone fails to understand is that the inability to
accomplish the logically impossible is never any actual sort of failure.
>

Olcott fails to see that, even the logically impossible is impossible. He thinks that he can claim that it is possible by changing the definitions.

>
When the problem definition is specify the algorithm
for correctly encoding a correct geometric square circle
then rejecting the original problem definition is the only
correct option.
>
The inability to correctly encode such as algorithm
places no actual limit on computation.
>

>
So, Olcott thinks that by changing the definitions he can create an algorithm to encode a correct geometric square circle

>
*I didn't say anything like that*
That you said that did does not seem like any honest mistake.
>

>
But it is just as isomorphic to what you said as your "termination analyzer" is to the Halting Problem.

 THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THE ABOVE REPLY.

Yes it is, but Olcott removed most of my reply in his citation, where I described how they are isomorphic.
Is is stupid or dishonest to remove important words from a reply and then claim that it is not the topic of the reply?