XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/16/2025 10:46 AM, HAL 9000 wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2025 09:29:48 -0600, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 11/16/2025 6:42 AM, HAL 9000 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2025 19:14:00 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2025 6:56 PM, HAL 9000 wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2025 13:52:14 -0600, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott writes:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott writes:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you are a competent C programmer then you know that DDD
>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly each its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>>> "cannot possibly each"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is what On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> is responding to below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am a competent C programmer (and I don't believe you can make
>>>>>>>>> the same claim). I don't know what HHH is. The name "HHH" tells
>>>>>>>>> me nothing about what it's supposed to do. Without knowing what
>>>>>>>>> HHH is,
>>>>>>>>> I can't say much about your code (or is it pseudo-code?).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the purpose of this discussion HHH is exactly what I said it
>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>> It correctly simulates DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does HHH correctly simulate DDD *and do nothing else*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does HHH correctly simulate *every* function whose address is
>>>>>>> passed to it? Must the passed function be one that takes no
>>>>>>> arguments and does not return a value?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can HHH just *call* the function whose address is passed to it?
>>>>>>> If it's a correct simulation, there should be no difference between
>>>>>>> calling the function and "correctly simulating" it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My knowledge of C tells me nothing about *how* HHH might simulate
>>>>>>> DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need not know anything else about HHH to know that DDD
>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly REACH its own "return"
>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here is his response *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
>>>>>>> does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD(void) {
>>>>>>> DDD(); return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the return statement (which is unnecessary anyway) will never
>>>>>>> be reached. In practice, the program will likely crash due to a
>>>>>>> stack overflow, unless the compiler implements tail-call
>>>>>>> optimization, in which case the program might just run forever --
>>>>>>> which also means the unnecessary return statement will never be
>>>>>>> reached.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> That is only the case if HHH is of an erroneous design: whatever HHH
>>>>> does with DDD should NOT leak out of HHH so your SHD is designed
>>>>> incorrectly. If HHH(DDD) reports non-halting then DDD will halt thus
>>>>> HHH is erroneous.
>>>>>
>>>>> /HAL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It great to have someone new here, welcome.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c Simulating
>>>> termination analyzer HHH and input DD have been a fully operational
>>>> software system for more than three years.
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*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 N statements of DD are simulated by HHH according to the
>>>> semantics of the C programming language the simulated DD cannot reach
>>>> its own simulated "return" statement final halt state for any value of
>>>> N.
>>>>
>>>> HHH report on the actual behavior that its actual input actually
>>>> specifies as measured by DD simulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>> HHH cannot possibly report on the behavior of its caller because HHH
>>>> has no way of knowing what function is calling it.
>>>>
>>>> This means that when the halting problem requires HHH to report on the
>>>> behavior of its caller: DD() that its is requiring something outside
>>>> the scope of computation,
>>>
>>> No, if HHH(DD) reports non-halting to DD then DD will halt thus HHH is
>>> erroneous.
>>>
>>> /HAL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That is the key objection to my work.
>>
>> The information that HHH is required to report on simply is not
>> contained in its input.
>>
>> HHH cannot report on the behavior of its caller because it has no way of
>> even knowing which function called it. The same thing applies to the
>> Peter Linz Turing machine version.
>>
>> HHH(DD) does correctly report on the behavior that its input specifies.
>> No decider can ever report on more than that.
>>
>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y;}
>> sum(3,4) cannot report on the sum of 5+6 even if required to do so. That
>> requirement is incorrect.
>>
>> I have worked on this for 28 years because:
>> If the halting problem is correct then the notion of "true on the basis
>> of meaning" is broken.
>
> DD halts.
>
> /HAL
>
Yet that requires HHH to report on information
that is not contained in its input thus it is
incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
