Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism

On 3/14/2025 1:01 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/14/2025 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:58 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 11:33 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:01 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 10:51 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:04 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:>>

void DDD()
{
      HHH(DDD);
      return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
correctly simulated steps.
>
That you are clueless about the semantics of something
as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
competent to review my work.
>

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description
of
an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
to
run
forever.
>
That means: H(D)=1 if D() halts and H(D)=0 if D() does not halt.
>
But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my level, ....
>
>
>

>
void DDD()
{
     HHH(DDD);
     return;
}
>
The only difference between HHH and HHH1 is that they are
at different locations in memory. DDD simulated by HHH1
has identical behavior to DDD() directly executed in main().
>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
to simulate to DDD exactly once.
>
When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite
string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting.
>
When HHH(DDD) is required to report on behavior other than
the behavior that its finite string specifies HHH is not
a decider thus not a halt decider.
>
All deciders are required to compute the mapping from
their input finite string to the semantic or syntactic property
that this string specifies. Deciders return true when this
string specifies this property otherwise they return false.
>

>
Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No.
>
>

>
I have only correctly refuted the conventional halting
problem proof. Actually solving the halting problem
requires a program that is ALL KNOWING thus God like.

>
I (GUR) had told you God cannot solve HP neither (maybe because the problem is limited in a box)
>

>
When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.
>

  And that is EXACTLY what the halting problem is about: it is not possible to construct an H where H(X,Y) reports whether X(Y) halts when executed directly.
 A problem that you have now EXPLICITLY agreed is unsolvable.  So...
 

Likewise:
What time is it (yes or no)? equally has no solution.
That BOGUS problem instances have no solution places
no actual limit on anything.
I coined the term "incorrect question" years ago.
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.lang/c/lSdYexJ0ozo/m/aDN9-TYLHwIJ
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer