Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:39:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <861e0c0c55e15269086413cf6cad07b3ab069ec7@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me>
 <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org>
 <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org>
 <ve76ad$2reoe$1@dont-email.me>
 <307da0d6504494d6bba2b52b14d735d408b53c54@i2pn2.org>
 <ve7gvi$30h1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <77ee281a7ca732b64eb0d09d18f3117921e4072f@i2pn2.org>
 <ve8iob$354g5$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:39:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1485281"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ve8iob$354g5$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6135
Lines: 119

On 10/10/24 8:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/10/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/9/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2024 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/9/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion 
>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which 
>>>>>>>>>>> are you?
>>>>>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off 
>>>>>>>>>>> someone who is
>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe 
>>>>>>>>>>> Peter? You
>>>>>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely 
>>>>>>>>>>> noticed
>>>>>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one 
>>>>>>>>>>> sensible
>>>>>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of 
>>>>>>>>>>> articles, ago
>>>>>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, 
>>>>>>>>>>> but anything
>>>>>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth 
>>>>>>>>>>> roughly what you
>>>>>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, 
>>>>>>>>>>> not using HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think 
>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No 
>>>>>>>>>>> more than one
>>>>>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult 
>>>>>>>>>>> you are, in
>>>>>>>>>>> fact, trying to help.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more 
>>>>>>>>>> progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the 
>>>>>>>>>> regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps 
>>>>>>>>>> everybody off the deserted streets at night.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
>>>>>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
>>>>>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what 
>>>>>>>> you do)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- 
>>>>>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined 
>>>>>>>> to return 0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>>> exist never returns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an 
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that 
>>>>>>>> never returns an answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>> exist never returns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly 
>>>>>> executed. 
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID !!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you are admitting you don't know what your words mean? Since 
>>>> that *IS* what they mean. Your failure to even attempt to refute my 
>>>> grammer analysis shows you accept my logic, or at least can't fight it.
>>>
>>> You are not talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
>>>
>>
>> But that was what your previous sentence was talking about, 
> 
> counter-factual.
> 

So, you admit that you are not talking in the domain of the halting problem.

Just saying something is counter-factual doesn't make it so.

Your problem seems to be that you don't understand what it means to 
proves something, likely because you have chosen to refuse to learn the 
basics of what you are talking about, which just proves your stupidity.