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

On 2/10/2025 6:47 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 05:51:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/10/2025 2:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:54 schreef 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:

 

And anyone that understand the halting problem
knows that isn't the question being asked. The
quesiton you NEED to ask is will the program
described by the input halt when run?
>

It has always been a mathematical mapping from
finite strings to behaviors.
>

Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior,
and that mapping is DEFINED to be the halting
behavior of the program the string describes.
>

No this is incorrect. The input finite string
specifies (not merely describes) non halting
behavior to its decider.
>

No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the
behavior of the progran being run.

>

A termination analyzer computes the mapping from finite
strings to the actual behavior that these finite strings
specify.
>

And the behavior the finite string specifies is the
behavior of running the program.

>
That is verifiably factually incorrect.
The running program has a different execution trace than
the behavior that DD specifies to HHH.
>

If so, then it proves the failure of the simulation. The
simulation aborts too soon on unsound grounds, one cycle
before the normal termination of the program.
>

DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally is a
verified fact.
>

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.

>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
      HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
    HHH(DD);
}

>
The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable to complete
its simulation, because HHH is unable to simulate itself.
>

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c The above
code proves that HHH does simulate itself simulating DD.
>

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.

>
It is true as a verified fact and has been pointed out to Olcott many
times, but he refuses to learn. So, again:
It is a verified fact that main halts,

>
It is a verified fact that the input to HHH(main) cannot possibly
terminate normally. The strawman error <is> an error.

Yeah, if the input HHH doesn’t terminate, that is not a decider.
 

The directly executed HHH(DD) correctly rejects its
input on the basis that DD simulated by HHH cannot
possibly terminate normally.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer