Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.theory > #106790

Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt

From olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt
Date 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <v44jvn$3jnc8$3@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <v44dle$3i5jo$2@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 6/9/2024 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:

*You must know the C programming language to understand this*

typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function

01   void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
02   {
03     P(I);
04     return;
05   }
06
07   void DDD(int (*x)())
08   {
09     HHH(x, x);
10     return;
11   }
12
13   int main()
14   {
15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
16   }
17

*The truth preserving transformations are anchored in the*
*semantics of the C programming language that specifies*
line 15 of main executes HHH(DDD,DDD);
line 03 of HHH  executes DDD(DDD)
line 09 of DDD  executes HHH(DDD,DDD);

This can be summed up as simply comprehending
infinite recursion <is> the proof that

In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their
own return statement thus never halt.

It is the exact same process that HH(DD,DD) recognizes
this exact same infinite recursion behavior pattern.

Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD)
aborts its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
That is not the case. In the theory of computation "halting"
essentially means "terminated normally" in software engineering.

When HHH is a simulating halt decider just like HH then
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally

> 
> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
> own return statement, AKA
> 
>     simulating halt decider HHH correctly simulates its input DDD
>     until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DDD would never
>     stop running unless aborted
> 
> *as defined here*
> <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 words10/13/2022>
> 
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Back to comp.theory | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
  Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
    Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
      Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
        Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
          Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
            Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
              Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
                D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
            Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
              Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500

csiph-web