Sujet : Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Feb 2025, 08:28:53
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <f4a1a9c106d4490f0ede6900ed3327ea4110624a@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:36:51 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/10/2025 12:41 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 10.feb.2025 om 13:27 schreef olcott:
On 2/10/2025 6:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 10.feb.2025 om 12:51 schreef 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:
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.
No, the verified fact is that the input can terminatie normally
The directly executed main IS NOT THE INPUT TO HHH.
>
This main is a program that includes all functions called directly and
indirectly, including HHH.
The input to HHH(main) when correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
The input to HHH, which is main(), terminates. HHH does not simulate that.
The directly executed main() *IS NOT* the input to HHH(main)
and *IS NOT* simulated by HHH.
Do you not think you can pass a program to a simulator? What else do
you think HHH is simulating.
The security guard at the front door cannot even see the back door thus
is not accountable for the back door.
The guard should damn well be.
HHH can see what its input does and that *IS ALL* that it is accountable
for.
No. HHH can see what itself does. If it did something different to the
input, that would not change what the input does.
-- 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.
…