Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. General Programming
  3. C / C++ / MFC
  4. Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved C / C++ / MFC
debuggingdata-structuresperformancehelptutorial
42 Posts 4 Posters 15 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P polcott

    I am aware that there are journals that accept any material if you pay them enough. My aim is Communications of the ACM, where Edgar Dijkstra got his start. Edgar Dijkstra: Go To Statement Considered Harmful

    J Offline
    J Offline
    jeron1
    wrote on last edited by
    #26

    OK, then how about starting here. Author Guidelines | Communications of the ACM[^]

    "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • P polcott

      And examining the complete github code of H posted on a link in these messages we can see that H itself correctly determines that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally. H simply recognizes a dynamic behavior pattern having the same form as infinite recursion. For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. Wikipedia: Halting Problem Finally we can also see (From the above Wikipedia quote) that H and D have the exact halting problem relationship to each other. Thus it is clear from a software engineering perspective that H does correctly determine the halt status of the halting problem's "impossible" input. If I was actually wrong someone could point out a mistake.

      J Offline
      J Offline
      jschell
      wrote on last edited by
      #27

      polcott wrote:

      If I was actually wrong someone could point out a mistake.

      I can't speak for anyone else but I am certainly not going to attempt to teach you an entire class on Turing Machine mathematics. And I already suggested that you take exactly that sort of class. I found one that teaches it. I know there are others. Models of Computation[^]

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • J jeron1

        OK, then how about starting here. Author Guidelines | Communications of the ACM[^]

        "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

        P Offline
        P Offline
        polcott
        wrote on last edited by
        #28

        I spoke very extensively with Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM about two dozen emails altogether. Back then I could only prove my point though an x86 machine language execution trace. He did not know the x86 language at all so I made zero progress. The only huge success that I had was with: MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct: 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. He also agreed that I can quote him on this. It is only the above paragraph that he has agreed to.

        J 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • P polcott

          I spoke very extensively with Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM about two dozen emails altogether. Back then I could only prove my point though an x86 machine language execution trace. He did not know the x86 language at all so I made zero progress. The only huge success that I had was with: MIT Professor Michael Sipser has agreed that the following verbatim paragraph is correct: 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. He also agreed that I can quote him on this. It is only the above paragraph that he has agreed to.

          J Offline
          J Offline
          jeron1
          wrote on last edited by
          #29

          Quote:

          Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM

          How about now, armed with your quote?

          "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

          P 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J jeron1

            Quote:

            Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM

            How about now, armed with your quote?

            "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

            P Offline
            P Offline
            polcott
            wrote on last edited by
            #30

            He has already made up his mind and closed it. I really shouldn't even need that quote. Anyone with at least a BSCS can verify that it is necessarily true. The technical term for a statement that is necessarily true is tautology.

            J 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • P polcott

              He has already made up his mind and closed it. I really shouldn't even need that quote. Anyone with at least a BSCS can verify that it is necessarily true. The technical term for a statement that is necessarily true is tautology.

              J Offline
              J Offline
              jeron1
              wrote on last edited by
              #31

              polcott wrote:

              He has already made up his mind

              Who's 'he', the current editor? Look, if your stated aim to publish there (CAMC), then concentrate your efforts there. It doesn't seem as though 'here' is getting you anywhere.

              "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

              P 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • J jeron1

                polcott wrote:

                He has already made up his mind

                Who's 'he', the current editor? Look, if your stated aim to publish there (CAMC), then concentrate your efforts there. It doesn't seem as though 'here' is getting you anywhere.

                "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                P Offline
                P Offline
                polcott
                wrote on last edited by
                #32

                I generally get the same response that I am getting here. Everyone is so sure that I must be wrong that they don't bother to look at a single word that I have said and simply vote me down until the post is deleted. Any BSCS graduate taking five minutes to examine my code can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation. That by itself should be enough to pique their interest in looking at the additional details. Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.

                J 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P polcott

                  I generally get the same response that I am getting here. Everyone is so sure that I must be wrong that they don't bother to look at a single word that I have said and simply vote me down until the post is deleted. Any BSCS graduate taking five minutes to examine my code can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation. That by itself should be enough to pique their interest in looking at the additional details. Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  jeron1
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #33

                  polcott wrote:

                  Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.

                  For some reason I doubt that. What would happen if everyone here agreed with your conclusion?

                  "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J jeron1

                    polcott wrote:

                    Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.

                    For some reason I doubt that. What would happen if everyone here agreed with your conclusion?

                    "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    polcott
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #34

                    If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct and they sincerely meant this, then I would know that I have finally made my point clear enough and I would submit page three to letters to the editor of CACM. Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs I might have to come up with a much less controversial title such as: Simple Termination analysis between executing C functions.

                    J 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • P polcott

                      If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct and they sincerely meant this, then I would know that I have finally made my point clear enough and I would submit page three to letters to the editor of CACM. Simulating (partial) Halt Deciders Defeat the Halting Problem Proofs I might have to come up with a much less controversial title such as: Simple Termination analysis between executing C functions.

                      J Offline
                      J Offline
                      jeron1
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #35

                      polcott wrote:

                      If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct

                      Probably not going to happen here, so just cut to the chase. Change the title and submit, possibly adding that professors name somehow in the title.

                      "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • J jeron1

                        polcott wrote:

                        If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct

                        Probably not going to happen here, so just cut to the chase. Change the title and submit, possibly adding that professors name somehow in the title.

                        "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                        P Offline
                        P Offline
                        polcott
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #36

                        In other words you too are not going to bother to take five minutes and verify that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation.

                        J 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • P polcott

                          In other words you too are not going to bother to take five minutes and verify that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly terminate normally because it remains stuck in recursive simulation.

                          J Offline
                          J Offline
                          jeron1
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #37

                          You are correct.

                          "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                          P 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • J jeron1

                            You are correct.

                            "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                            P Offline
                            P Offline
                            polcott
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #38

                            The objective facts prove that I am correct thus superseding all opinions to the contrary. I really hope that you don't feel this same way about climate change.

                            J 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • P polcott

                              The objective facts prove that I am correct thus superseding all opinions to the contrary. I really hope that you don't feel this same way about climate change.

                              J Offline
                              J Offline
                              jeron1
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #39

                              I claimed nothing about your conclusions one way or another.

                              polcott wrote:

                              The objective facts prove that I am correct thus superseding all opinions to the contrary.

                              Where has that got you?

                              "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                              P 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J jeron1

                                I claimed nothing about your conclusions one way or another.

                                polcott wrote:

                                The objective facts prove that I am correct thus superseding all opinions to the contrary.

                                Where has that got you?

                                "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                                P Offline
                                P Offline
                                polcott
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #40

                                It has brought me to the harsh realization that humanity really is in the post truth era.

                                J 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • P polcott

                                  It has brought me to the harsh realization that humanity really is in the post truth era.

                                  J Offline
                                  J Offline
                                  jeron1
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #41

                                  You can't force people to care, that's the truth.

                                  "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J jeron1

                                    You can't force people to care, that's the truth.

                                    "the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment "Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst "I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle

                                    P Offline
                                    P Offline
                                    polcott
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #42

                                    The issue is not that people don't care. It is that they consider the entirely unsupported opinion of their reference group to carry infinitely more weight than the actual verified facts.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    Reply
                                    • Reply as topic
                                    Log in to reply
                                    • Oldest to Newest
                                    • Newest to Oldest
                                    • Most Votes


                                    • Login

                                    • Don't have an account? Register

                                    • Login or register to search.
                                    • First post
                                      Last post
                                    0
                                    • Categories
                                    • Recent
                                    • Tags
                                    • Popular
                                    • World
                                    • Users
                                    • Groups