XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c++

On 12/6/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2024 11:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.12.2024 um 05:20 schrieb olcott:

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.

Maybe you'll solve your halting problem issues before you die.

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);
}

I am sure that DD correctly emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the C programming language cannot possibly
reach its own return instruction final halt state.

How does HHH correctly emulated DD, if it isn't give tne code for the
HHH that DD calls?

Note, per the definition of the Halting Problem, which you claim to be
solving, the input shown is not a valid input for a halt decider, as the
input needs to be a FULL PROGRAM, which you are not providing.

When HHH reports on this behavior of its actual input
it is necessarily correct to reject DD as non halting.
DD emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive simulation.

But it CAN'T do that, as the

Everyone seems to be in universal agreement that HHH
is supposed to report on the behavior of a non-input
except for theory of computation professor Sipser of MIT.

Except that the input *IS* the reprentation of the *PROGRAM* DDD, or it
isn't a valid input.

What is "non-input" abot that? If you are excluding the code of HHH from
the input, the input is just invalid and your claims are shown to be
just stupid lies.

Thus Professor Hehner derived the essence of this halt status criteria:
This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:

No, you are misinterpreting his answer.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted then

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Right, the decider must determine that a *CORRECT EMULATION* of the
input must not reach a final state, and his definition of a correct
emulation is a emualtion that continues until it reaches a final state,
and thus will be non-halting itself if the program it is emulating is non-halting.

Note also, D is a PROGRAM, which means it includes ALL its code, which
for your above program includes the code for HHH, so that HHH ever
abortes and return (by incorrectly thinking it has satisfied the first
part) then the actual correct emulation of that input would return, and
H has just failed to meed the requriements of correctly determining that
a correct emulation of the input will never halt.

Your attempt to argue that HHH had to abort is just incorrect, as HHH is
at this point a FIXED program (not your infinite set of deciders) as it
is defined by the code in the input which includes that HHH, and we know
that if HHH acts as you claim, that the correct emulation of the input
will halt, and thus HHH could not have correctly determined that the
emulation of *THIS* input would not halt, so it has just aborted its
emulation in violation of the conditions, and thus has given up the "protection" of that clause.

Your LYING CHANGING of the input to refer to a different program DDD
that uses a different HHH is just that, A LIE, as that input doesn't
mathc the input that your HHH that answered was given, as it has
different code for the HHH that the DDD called.

Sorry, but all you are doing is proving that you are just an ignorant
liar that doesn't understand the words he is using and apparently
doesn't care that he has no factual basis to make your claims, showing
you are nothing but an ignorant pathological liar.

That WILL be you legacy whenever your cancer takes you unless you repent
and show some ability to learn the actual facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c++

On 12/7/24 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 4:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 12:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/7/24 6:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/6/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/6/2024 8:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/6/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/5/2024 11:20 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

Am 05.12.2024 um 05:20 schrieb olcott:

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month. >>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe you'll solve your halting problem issues before you die. >>>>>>>>>>>>

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);
}


I am sure that DD correctly emulated by HHH according to >>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the C programming language cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>> reach its own return instruction final halt state.

How does HHH correctly emulated DD, if it isn't give tne code >>>>>>>>>> for the
HHH that DD calls?

As I have told you many dozens of times HHH and DD share
the same global memory space within memory version of the
Halt7.obj file.

And thus you admit that your HHH isn’t the required “pure
function” as its
result is dependent on that contents of that global memory, and >>>>>>>> not just
its input, as required by the definition of a global function, >>>>>>>>

First we have to acknowledge that pure function or not HHH does
something unprecedented in the history of the halting problem:
HHH does correctly reject its input as non-halting.

No, it doesn't do anything "unprecedented".

Changing the subject to a different criteria
IS CHEATING USING THE STRAWMAN DECEPTION

Right, which is what *YOU* have done. As your subject says, you are
talking about the *HALTING PROPBLEM* which has a defined criteeria

When I say the the work that I accomplished ON MY CRITERIA
has never been done before IT IS WOEFULLY DISHONEST to
rebut this by changing the subject to some other criteria.

Then the work you have accopmllished is just a LIE.

Just like the climare and election deniers.

I wrote a paper on climate change
Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with verifiable facts https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

So? Your claim you get to redefine the terms of the problem allow the
deniers to do the same.

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);
}

When I say that simulating termination analyzer HHH does
correctly reject DD on the basis that DD emulated by HHH**
does not halt THIS IS A MATTER OF FACT.

But is irrelevent for the problem you claim to be working on, and thus
claiming it shows what you claim is just a LIE.

**according to the semantics of C or x86 machine language.

Nope, because your HHH FAILS to emulate per the x86 machine language,
because aborting a simulation is a violation of those semantics./

Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a stupid and ignorant
liar that doesn't care about what is actually true due to your reckless disregard for the truth.

That is what you are going to leave as your legacy, that you are nothing
but that stupid liar.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.lang.c++

On 12/8/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/8/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-12-05 04:20:50 +0000, olcott said:

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.

On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:

You said:
  >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That is WRONG !!!
HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement: >>>>>>>>>>>>>

HHH can't simulate itself.

That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
THAT IT CAN DO THIS.

But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.

I did not mention anything about answers my entire
scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
emulating DDD.

Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
seems dishonest to me.

But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer", >>>>>>>>>

DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction >>>>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts. >>>>>>>>>

Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it
isn't given it,

Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this?
I could die on the operating table in two weeks!

What's the lie?

Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable
reference that show it?

All you have is your own lies to call it a lie.

And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you will
have left behind is all your lies.

Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that
HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

Nope.

It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure
function

It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.

Once we get through this point then we know that DDD
does not halt:

DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
*This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT*

We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this
answer as a pure function until after we agree with the
prior point.

*In all of the history of the halting problem there*
*have never been a correct return value for this*

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);
}

This is not a useful main. It is sufficient to determine whether HHH
returns but not to determine whther it returns the correct value.

When we understand that the first point is correct
then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct.
*This has much has never ever been done before*

This is one of the well known methods to prove that the value HHH returns
is incorrect. If HHH returns 0 then DD returns 0 but the meaning of 0 in
this context is that DD does not halt. THerefore the value returned by
HHH is incorrect.

Every expert in the C programming language has agreed that DD
simulated by HHH cannot possibly return. Everyone disagreeing
with this has dishonestly used to strawman deception to refer to
different behavior than DD simulated by HHH.

Whch is just irrelevent, as the halting question isn't about DD
partially emulated by the decider, but about the ACTUAL behavior of the program, or its COMPLETE emulation, of the COMPLETE program the input represent, which INCLUDES the code of the HHH that it calls.

And, by your definition of what you can "the input" which excludes the
explicit mentioning of the code of HHH, we can't even do that, as your
input isn't that of a program, but just an unrunable program fragment.

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
  return;
}

The behavior of DDD simulated by HHH is isomorphic.
I provide this example for people that are only novices
with C programming.

Only in the sense that by your definitions, neither is possible beyond
the first 4 instruciton, as the code for HHH has been excluded from the
input.

Then after we know that HHH(DD) is correct to return
0 for its input we get to applying Mike's idea to
make HHH a pure function.

We know otherwise.

Sorry, you are just proving that your "arguement" is just based on lies
and bad defintions, which shows your utter stupidity and lack of respect
for what is true.

That is your legacy, that Peter Olcott had no idea about what he was
talking about and just live a life based on lying.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)