1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input --- TOTALLY CL

    From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Wed May 7 17:39:57 2025
    Op 07.mei.2025 om 16:56 schreef olcott:
    On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:
    On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    <snip>

    There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's
    claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-
    factual.

    int DD()
    {
       int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of persuasive power.

    It doesn't.


    Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.
    The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
    reach its own "return" instruction.

    Yes, because they all understand that due to a bug HHH aborts
    prematurely, before it sees the code of Halt7.c, which specifies a
    conditional abort.
    That a bug makes that it fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, does not
    show that this 'ret' instruction is unreachable.
    In fact it is reachable as a verified fact, proven by direct execution
    and world-class simulators.
    So, I would say:


    If you are totally clueless about programming you
    won't get this.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed May 7 16:55:32 2025
    On 07/05/2025 15:56, olcott wrote:
    On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:
    On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    <snip>

    There's also an important difference between claiming that
    Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim
    is counter- factual.

    int DD()
    {
       int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of
    persuasive power.

    It doesn't.


    Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.

    Name one sufficiently competent C programmer who is prepared to
    confirm their agreement.

    The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
    reach its own "return" instruction.

    If you are totally clueless about programming you
    won't get this.

    So you say. And if (as it appears) you are totally clueless about
    logic, you won't get the Halting Problem proof.

    Now let's look at the code.

    int DD()
    {
    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
    if (Halt_Status)
    HERE: goto HERE;
    return Halt_Status;
    }

    The behaviour of this code depends on the HHH function, which you
    don't show here.

    If you care to show the /whole/ of the C code, we can talk about
    what the C /actually/ does, rather than what you think it does.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed May 7 22:47:58 2025
    On 5/7/25 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
    On 07/05/2025 14:22, olcott wrote:
    On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

    <snip>

    There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's
    claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-
    factual.

    int DD()
    {
       int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
       if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
       return Halt_Status;
    }

    Yeah, you keep posting that, as if it had some kind of persuasive power.

    It doesn't.


    Every sufficiently competent C program has agreed.
    The DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
    reach its own "return" instruction.


    Nope. Just prove again that you are just a liar.

    If you are totally clueless about programming you
    won't get this.


    No, it seems you are the totally clueless one, as you don't undertstand
    what a program is, and try to get away with equivocation.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Heathfield@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Thu May 8 05:18:38 2025
    On 08/05/2025 03:47, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 5/7/25 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

    <snip>

    If you are totally clueless about programming you
    won't get this.


    No, it seems you are the totally clueless one, as you don't
    undertstand what a program is, and try to get away with
    equivocation.

    He tries to get away with syntax errors, too. And dereferencing
    null pointers.

    What would your prediction be? Active denial by umbrage? Passive
    denial by unresponsiveness? Or a new release of the code?

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

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