Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135807
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself |
| Date | 2025-11-16 13:18 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10fdf2l$ds0j$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (23 earlier) <Ki9SQ.17928$DJ42.15442@fx16.ams4> <10fb8gp$3s2m5$1@dont-email.me> <IEjSQ.9831$Uyd1.1726@fx06.ams4> <10fcqlf$7ttl$1@dont-email.me> <AdnSQ.8838$zNa5.5254@fx11.ams4> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 11/16/2025 8:46 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 <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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.
If HHH(DD) returns non-zero it goes into an infinite GOTO loop. We can
say this is non-halting. If HHH(DD) returns zero, DD halts.
int DD()
{
10: int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
20: if (Halt_Status)
30: HERE: goto HERE;
40: return Halt_Status;
}
DD can halt, or not based on what HHH returns to its logic. I made a
little fuzzer that basically hijacks HHH for DD that makes sure to
simulate both paths:
____________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "ct_dr_fuzz lol. ;^)"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 REM Fuzzer... ;^)
20 A$ = "NOPE!"
30 IF RND(1) < .5 THEN A$ = "YES"
100 REM INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
110 PRINT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
200 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
300 P0 = P0 + 1
400 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
500 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000 REM Fin
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
____________________________
Once both paths have been hit the fuzzer can fin. Afaict, its simulating
all of DD. Well, better than Olcotts HHH that says DD does not halt.
That is not true. It can halt, or not... I think its fair enough.
A human input version:
____________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "HHH"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
20 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
30 P0 = P0 + 1
40 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
50 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000 REM Fin
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
____________________________
Olcott seems to think that if HHH(DD) never returns then DD always is
non halting. This is not a full coverage simulation of DD.
Fair enough?
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-14 13:52 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:57 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:11 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:23 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:44 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:40 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:05 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 02:35 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:10 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:51 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:57 +0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:23 +0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:25 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 05:37 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:48 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:47 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:36 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-15 16:27 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:43 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:58 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:11 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:22 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:33 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 15:49 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:08 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:15 -0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:26 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:34 -0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:42 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:54 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:38 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:07 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:55 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:17 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:11 -0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:57 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:36 -0800
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:00 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 00:56 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:14 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 12:42 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 09:29 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 16:46 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:07 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:11 +0000
DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:20 -0600
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 18:43 +0000
Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:18 -0800
csiph-web