Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle
 pathological inputs?
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:21:28 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <024573bd43aff6a3d3bf5a6dfe7654cdaa89e0ae@i2pn2.org>
References: <1027isi$on4i$1@dont-email.me> <1028n53$1440t$1@dont-email.me>
	<1029pla$1ah2f$15@dont-email.me>
	<f901f7cb6bb240e46f2f64f93f3571ccfe8b90d2@i2pn2.org>
	<xl%1Q.285105$VBab.37836@fx08.ams4>
	<b7833de17b81773536f5837bf1ca856100abd776@i2pn2.org>
	<bPj2Q.137333$v0S.21911@fx14.ams4>
	<a7c1f1178226c5951954f0df8dc0b791317bf7a5@i2pn2.org>
	<WxG2Q.1109041$wBt6.176251@fx15.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 21:21:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="214065"; 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

Am Thu, 12 Jun 2025 20:13:42 +0000 schrieb Mr Flibble:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:21:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/11/25 2:21 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 23:15:51 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/25 3:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:53:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/10/25 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 21:14:58 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>> But it will never "return" because it is infinitely recursive; the
>>>>> simulation is aborted and a halting result if non-halting is
>>>>> returned elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> So, you have a problem, either you don't have a correct simulation to
>>>> show you got the right answer, or you don't answer.
>>>> That is the problem with trying to have the decider itself be two
>>>> contradictory entities.
>>>> A correct simulator can not be a correct decider it the input is
>>>> actually non-halting.
>>>> There seems to be some mental block about the fact that the
>>>> DEFINITION of this sort of decider is that:
>>>> H(M) returns 1 if UTM(M) halts, and H(M) returns 0 if UTM(M) will
>>>> never halt
>>>> If you try to combine the the UTM and H into one program that it can
>>>> NEVER correctly return 0, as it can only return 0 if it never halt
>>>> (and thus can't return a value)
>>> 
>>> You are wrong. An SHD does not have to simulate an algorithm to
>>> completion if it determines non-halting early BY ANALYSIS.
>> 
>> I didn't say it needed to. But it needs to determine what such a
>> simulation will do.
>> In fact, as I said, if the input IS non-halting, it can't be both the
>> required simulator and the decider, so it is logically inconsistent to
>> say that it is the simulation by the decider that defines the result.
>> t seems you have fallen for Olcott's insanity.
[AI slop]
> Would you like this analysis as a downloadable text file?
I wouldn't like this posted at all, but at least mark it as generated.

-- 
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.