Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:46:56 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 115 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:46:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438"; logging-data="1016811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lddQhhysonQQIjJsUdG2P" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:IG2++6PA3FHSQYNhRs26h5UrMYI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6731 On 6/24/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-23 13:13:42 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/23/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-22 14:11:28 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am the sole inventor of the simulating halt decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben Bacarisse contacted professor Sipser to verify that he >>>>>> really did says this. The details are in this forum about >>>>>> the same date. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>> >>>>> And, as I remember, he also verified that he disagrees with your >>>>> definition of correct simulation. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Ben also verified that the criteria have been met* >>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>>> >>>>> Right, Ben was willing to do what I am not that you can prove that, >>>>> by your definition, H can show that it "must" abort its simulation >>>>> or the input will run forever. >>>>> >>>>> But, just like me, he also agrees that this is NOT the defintion of >>>>> Halting, so H is just shown to be a correct (partial) POOP decider >>>>> but ot a Halt Decider, not even for that one input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>> > >>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>> > >>>> *Ben agrees that the criteria is met for the input* >>>> >>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function >>>> is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the >>>> job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function* >>>> *domain it can return the corresponding output* >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>> >>>> *Ben disagrees that the criteria is met for the non-input* >>>> Yet no one here can stay focused on the fact that non-inputs >>>> *DO NOT COUNT* >>> >>> In particular, you can't. You have insisted that your "decider" >>> or "anlyzer" (or whatever word you happen to use) H or HH (or >>> hwatever name you happen to use) must return false because a >>> non-input (where instead of the actually called function another >>> function that does not halt is called) does not halt. >>> >> >> You said it backwards. When I say that I am not guilty and did >> not rob the liquor store you cannot paraphrase this as he admitted >> that he robbed the liquor store. > > The important qestion is not whether you admit but what the police > finds out. > >> H performs a sequence of finite string transformations on >> its finite input of x86 machine code. These transformations >> include that D calls H(D,D) while being simulated by H. In >> such a case the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return. > > Which is all we need to know about H in ordet to determine that > it is not a decider. > void DDD() { H0(DDD); } _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly return. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer