Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle

On 4/6/2025 9:37 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>

On 4/6/2025 5:25 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>

On 05/04/2025 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>

On 2025-04-05, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>

On 05/04/2025 23:20, olcott wrote:
>

...

>
The difference between us is that I know it and you don't.

>
Olcott resides in a fortress he built out of bricks that were
specially ordered from Dunning and Kruger's website.
You're not getting through.

>
Well, no.  On the other hand, the discussion has in places driven
me to the literature and has thus in its own way been
educational.  For example, I was surprised to discover that
although Turing's 1936 paper does deal with the Halting Problem,
he doesn't actually use that term, which didn't surface until
1952.  I also stumbled on a 1972 paper on incomputability by Tony
Hoare and Donald Allison - well worth the read, and I was amused
by its somewhat prescient opening paragraph: "[...] programmers
have been known to attempt solutions to problems which are
probably unsolvable;  the existence of such problems should be of
interest to all programmers."  Clearly, 53 years ago, they already
had Olcott nailed.

>
I agree these discoveries are interesting, but the subject still
isn't one that is suitable for comp.lang.c.  A good way to avoid
these long pointless discussions is not to respond to postings
that are not suitable to comp.lang.c, except to point out that
they are not suitable to comp.lang.c.  And for any given poster,
don't respond to unsuitable postings more often than once a month.

>
My intent was to focus on the semantics of a pair of C functions.
Digression into computer science seems inappropriate and never
was my intent.  The comp.theory people refused to consider the
semantics of C aspects of these functions.

>
It seems the people who are responding to you have the impression
that you are convinced you have a solution to the halting problem,
and that your questions about code are in effect asking people to
convince you that you don't (or alternatively that you are offering
an argument that you have solved the halting problem).
>
If indeed your interest is only about how C defines the semantics of
some particular functions written in C, and having nothing to do
with solving the halting problem, then the burden is on you to
express that question well enough so that other people realize that.
So far it appears that you haven't succeeded with anyone who has
responded to your postings.

>
int DD()
{
  int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
  if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
  return Halt_Status;
}
>
The people responding to my posts have consistently
stonewalled my every attempt to:
(a) Show that DD correctly simulated by HHH could
    never reach its own "return" instruction.
>
(b) We never got to (b) because of endless stonewalling.
>
The end goal (in this forum) that is empirically proven
by this fully operational code:
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
is to show that HHH is a correct termination analyzer for DD.