Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:38:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <07964211af374ff49d412b8a2abb9ab758db5e26@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me>
 <bd3d4fcbef5ae30e9d2e81d3fd8de055f38f30ca@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h10g$3li66$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 19:38:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938152"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7h10g$3li66$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4810
Lines: 100

On 7/20/24 2:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    DDD();
>>> }
>>>
>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
>>> this is a design requirement.
>>
>> I don't know where you got the false idea that "Termination Analyzers" 
>> were "Partial Halt Deciders", then most certainly are not.
>>
>> Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis for a 
>> description, they deal with the related problem of determining if the 
>> input program will halt for *ALL* inputs, not just a given one.
>>
>>
>> Yes, in computer science, where the building of partial Termination 
>> Analyzers is an ongoing project, they often just drop the assumed 
>> partial as everyone know the general problem is not universally solvable.
>>
>> Also, the answer must be correct,
>>
>> and the input must be a PROGRAM, which mean it includes ALL its code 
>> that it uses, so for DDD, include the code for HHH.
>>
>>>
>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>>>
>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
>>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>> never stop running.
>>
>> But that is a DIFFERENT DDD then the one given to the HHH that aborted 
>> it emulation, and thus your logic is based on LYING.
>>
> 
> Sure of course everyone knows that when you examine
> every element of an infinite set that there are a
> whole bunch of elements of this infinite set that you
> never examined after you have examined every single
> one of them.

Who said there were some that weren't looked at?

That is just another of your near infinite set of lies.

We can look at EVERY ELEMENT in that infinite set, and every case falls 
into one of two cases:

Case 1: The HHH(DDD) *WILL* abort its emulation of the DDD it is given, 
that thus, does NOT "Correctly Emulate" its input per the FULL semantics 
of the x86 (since just stopping but not halting in the middle of the 
program doesn't match those semantics) and the DDD that was paired to 
such an HHH *WILL* reach its final state when run or correctly emulated 
by an ACTUAL correct emulator given the exact same input including the 
fact that it calls the HHH that aborts.

Case 2: The HHH(DDD) NEVER aborts its emulation of the DDD it is given, 
at which point that HHH will never return an answer. You acknoledge that 
this HHH doesn't meet your requirements, but you keep on trying to refer 
its case as to showing that DDD doesn't halt if not aborted, but this 
DDD is never given to any of the Case 1 HHHs.

Your trying to claim that DDD doesn't include the HHH is just a LIE, as 
it must to be a program, so if it doesn't, you can't actually emulate it 
past the first 4 steps.

> 
> Likewise when you are no longer hungry after getting
> something to eat this conclusively proves that you never
> were hungry thus never needed to eat.

Red Herring.

> 
> Are you really sure that you want to swear your allegiance
> to the father of lies?
> 

I don't, but you sure seem to have.

For instance, are you still holding to your lie that the representation 
of DDD as a FULL program doesn't include the code of HHH?

Or is it a LIE that HHH is actually defined as a decider for the 
behavior of a program?

Or is it a LIE that you are following the requirement of Computation 
Theory (which I think you just don't know). Note, not knowing doesn't 
make it a lie, but could be an honest mistake, repeating them after 
being told you are wrong, makes it a lie by the reckless disregard of 
the truth.