Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 05:46:31 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 85 Message-ID: <86ldscdtqw.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20250405153728.395@kylheku.com> <86tt71fuxh.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86y0wcelxp.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 14:46:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="58fc992bf3d49f6866b08a85a8ed3f48"; logging-data="3979955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oMELrf8vpWaKrEyfeVhkOa+LJbknXr84=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:9y35uK5JqvbRAyGs+Cays2s/a+4= sha1:G9qg57RMpVZfDSLSM9biAjR9A/M= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:392149 olcott writes: > On 4/6/2025 9:37 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> olcott writes: >> >>> On 4/6/2025 5:25 AM, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> Richard Heathfield writes: >>>> >>>>> On 05/04/2025 23:42, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2025-04-05, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05/04/2025 23:20, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The difference between us is that I know it and you don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> Olcott resides in a fortress he built out of bricks that were >>>>>> specially ordered from Dunning and Kruger's website. >>>>>> You're not getting through. >>>>> >>>>> Well, no. On the other hand, the discussion has in places driven >>>>> me to the literature and has thus in its own way been >>>>> educational. For example, I was surprised to discover that >>>>> although Turing's 1936 paper does deal with the Halting Problem, >>>>> he doesn't actually use that term, which didn't surface until >>>>> 1952. I also stumbled on a 1972 paper on incomputability by Tony >>>>> Hoare and Donald Allison - well worth the read, and I was amused >>>>> by its somewhat prescient opening paragraph: "[...] programmers >>>>> have been known to attempt solutions to problems which are >>>>> probably unsolvable; the existence of such problems should be of >>>>> interest to all programmers." Clearly, 53 years ago, they already >>>>> had Olcott nailed. >>>> >>>> I agree these discoveries are interesting, but the subject still >>>> isn't one that is suitable for comp.lang.c. A good way to avoid >>>> these long pointless discussions is not to respond to postings >>>> that are not suitable to comp.lang.c, except to point out that >>>> they are not suitable to comp.lang.c. And for any given poster, >>>> don't respond to unsuitable postings more often than once a month. >>> >>> My intent was to focus on the semantics of a pair of C functions. >>> Digression into computer science seems inappropriate and never >>> was my intent. The comp.theory people refused to consider the >>> semantics of C aspects of these functions. >> >> It seems the people who are responding to you have the impression >> that you are convinced you have a solution to the halting problem, >> and that your questions about code are in effect asking people to >> convince you that you don't (or alternatively that you are offering >> an argument that you have solved the halting problem). >> >> If indeed your interest is only about how C defines the semantics of >> some particular functions written in C, and having nothing to do >> with solving the halting problem, then the burden is on you to >> express that question well enough so that other people realize that. >> So far it appears that you haven't succeeded with anyone who has >> responded to your postings. > > int DD() > { > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); > if (Halt_Status) > HERE: goto HERE; > return Halt_Status; > } > > The people responding to my posts have consistently > stonewalled my every attempt to: > (a) Show that DD correctly simulated by HHH could > never reach its own "return" instruction. > > (b) We never got to (b) because of endless stonewalling. > > The end goal (in this forum) that is empirically proven > by this fully operational code: > > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c > > is to show that HHH is a correct termination analyzer for DD. I'm sorry my comments weren't more helpful for you.