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

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 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.

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.

Here is the code point out the (nonexistent) error:

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c#L502

Look at it.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.