Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:55:33 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org> <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 15:55:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c"; logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KXXXujget9Te4Qv6B3RKE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:R5Z8kmjYJfYivWK+oUBJ74bd3sA= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5982 On 3/7/2025 11:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/7/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/7/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/7/2025 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/7/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/7/2025 8:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE SHIT! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and running HHH(DD) will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' >>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject >>>>>>>>> WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' >>>>>>>> instruction (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the >>>>>>>> direct execution does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *set X* >>>>>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination >>>>>>> analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself >>>>>> >>>>>> Not an issue, since termination analyzers don't exist. >>>>> >>>>> I thought that you demonstrated knowledge of these things. >>>>> Maybe I was wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm >>>> exists that maps the halting function: >>>> >>>> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>> directly >>> >>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs >>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf >>> AProVE seems to be the leading authority on what you say DOES NOT EXIST >>> >> >> It should be noted that the term "analyzer" appears exactly ONCE in >> this document outside of the bibliography (compared to 46 for >> "termination analysis"), and that it focuses on the process of finding >> answers in some cases. >> >> The point is that your HHH doesn't give the answer that a halt >> decider / termination analyzer is stipulated to provide for DD. >> > > Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point > Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and > subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. > > Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point that halt deciders / termination analyzers map the halting function: (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed Which your HHH does not do and therefore can't be applied to the halting problem