Sujet : Re: Sufficient knowledge of C proves that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Feb 2025, 17:10:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vofsqb$1q3mf$2@dont-email.me>
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 : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 11.feb.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
On 2/11/2025 1:28 AM, joes wrote:
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 same instance of
main() that is input to HHH and simulated by HHH.
The directly executed main() relies on HHH aborting
the simulation of its input. HHH cannot rely on anything
else aborting the simulation of its input.
The simulating HHH should rely on the simulated HHH to abort. But HHH is not clever enough to see that the simulated HHH aborts. Therefore, the simulating HHH aborts one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort.
Unless HHH does abort the simulation of its input HHH
itself would never terminate normally. This by itself
proves that that the input to HHH cannot possibly
terminate normally.
If the simulating HHH would not abort, then the simulated HHH would abort. But HHH is not programmed clever enough to see that the simulated HHH already aborts.
In fact it is impossible to create an HHH that is clever enough. This is the halting theorem.
So, Olcott does nothing else but proving the halting theorem.
…