Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Linz's proofs and other undecidable decision problems [LP as
 basis] [Mike Terry]
Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 11:53:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <v1qs6d$2r29r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <877cj0g0bw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <uroob5$6c32$1@dont-email.me>
 <urpn7p$fetm$3@dont-email.me> <urq96s$m03b$9@dont-email.me>
 <urqmeg$p5i6$1@dont-email.me> <urqmv9$p6un$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2c69a25eecce5dc88cc3a979ee5cf9e4af2b67f.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqqo0$q1gd$1@dont-email.me>
 <94aaf99a4347e3fce0773fdd12001c3f03e3c1ea.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqrlk$q7ed$1@dont-email.me>
 <65a324cfb867c0219344ca9a767846930119784c.camel@gmail.com>
 <urqsr6$qgjj$1@dont-email.me> <urqviq$qrnj$2@dont-email.me>
 <a24a41a5fd0631d7dcca11af5bdc9819e3812cc7.camel@gmail.com>
 <urr0g7$r6eq$1@dont-email.me> <urregj$cbpo$2@i2pn2.org>
 <urrirc$12055$3@dont-email.me> <urrkup$cbpo$7@i2pn2.org>
 <urrrnf$13jnk$1@dont-email.me>
 <ROKdnSw4i6cUjn_4nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <urt4qb$1bs5i$3@dont-email.me>
 <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1loa5$1g957$1@dont-email.me> <v1n8jr$1u6so$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1o526$245mu$1@dont-email.me> <v1qj2t$2ouob$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qmdi$2podt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 May 2024 18:53:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72ecece1a9bec17b694bf422ef8241f0";
	logging-data="2984251"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187A8+dfsbyh9f3qcymn6EZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gTQe0D6Rly5vUCJlPpvggBm1mfM=
In-Reply-To: <v1qmdi$2podt$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4143

On 5/12/2024 10:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-12 14:18:05 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/12/2024 2:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-11 16:06:29 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/11/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-10 18:16:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape 
>>>>>>> contents etc.) of the simulated machine.  No problem there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What isn't allowed is the simulated machine altering its own 
>>>>>>> behaviour by accessing data outside of its own state.  (I.e. 
>>>>>>> accessing data from its parent simulators state.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While an "active-simulator" [my own term] is at liberty to combine
>>>>>>> straight simulation with add-on "enhancements" that extend the
>>>>>>> functionality of the simulated machine, in doing so it would no
>>>>>>> longer be a simulator in the sense you need it to be.  So you
>>>>>>> mustn't do this!
>>>>>
>>>>> In principle an incorrect simulation is permissible. However, to prove
>>>>> that the result inferred from an incorrect simulation is correct may
>>>>> be impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Within the conventional terms-of-the-art of {termination analyzer}
>>>> and {simulator} an incorrect simulation is forbidden.
>>>
>>> The conventional meaning of "termination analyzer" does not prohibit
>>> incorrect simulation.
>>
>> If it does not correctly determine termination then it is not
>> a termination analyzer.
> 
> That is not always required. IT is often considered sufficent that
> the analyzer does not determine incorrectly. To not determine at
> all is often considered acceptable.
> 
> An incorrect simulation as a part of the algorithm is acceptable
> as long as the result about termination is correct.
> 

A program that performs zero termination analysis is NOT
a termination analyzer. Richard was trying to get away
with sating that it is.

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