Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:01:13 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <27a1f3ca5697d57b9bc29add378db8bdb42e33da@i2pn2.org> References: <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org> <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org> <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org> <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:01:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2633776"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4730 Lines: 63 Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own >>>>>>>>> "return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and >>>>>>>> correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of >>>>>>>> DDD by HHH) >>>>>>>> will reach that return. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a >>>>>>> contradiction in terms. >>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of >>>>>>> DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction >>>>>>> final halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and >>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens. >>>>>> >>>>> A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a >>>>> complete emulation would never halt. >>>> What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one. >>>> >>> Please go read how Mike corrected you. >>> >> Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete >> simulations. > *You corrected Joes most persistent error* > She made sure to ignore this correction. Would you please point it out again? >> But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly >> halt. > A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion until > aborted. Yes, HHH can't simulate itself completely. I guess no simulator can. > Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required to correctly > predict the behavior of their inputs, thus the behavior of non-inputs is > outside of their domain. The input is just the description of D, which halts if H aborts. The non-input would be if D called a non-aborting simulator, because it is not being simulated by one that doesn't abort. We only care about the recursive construction, not your implementation of D that does NOT call its own simulator. > *This make the words you say below moot* >> You have seen that yourself, e.g. with main() calling DDD(), or >> UTM(DDD), or HHH1(DDD).  [All of those simulate DDD to completion and >> see DDD return.  What I said earlier was that HHH(DDD) does not >> simulate DDD to completion, which I think everyone recognises - it >> aborts before DDD() halts. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.