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
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 18:11:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@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 22:11:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938153"; 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: <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4156
Lines: 67

On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>
>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must abort
>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>> You missed a couple details:
>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
>> simulator halt on their own.
>>
>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt
>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>> Pretty much.
>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
>>>> need to.
>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist aborts
>>> its simulation.
>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>     HHH(DDD);
>     return;
> }
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
> possibly reach its own return instruction.
> 

Wrong.

It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, but if 
HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it to be a 
decider) then the behavior of DDD is to call HHH(DDD), for that HHH to 
partially emulate DDD, and (after the point in that DDD that it 
emulated) abort that emulation and return and thus DDD will return.

You are just proving you don't understand the difference between the 
Reality/Truth of the actual behavior of the PROGRAM DDD, and the partial 
knowledge gotten from the partial emulition by HHH of the DDD given.

THis just shows you are not qualified to talk about either the field of 
Computation, or Logic, as you have fundamental errors in your 
understandings.

You also clearly don't understand what a program is, as you seem to 
continue to claim that the "input" given to HHH(DDD) only includes the 
code of the C function of DDD, and not the REQUIRED code of the rest of 
the program, so you again lack the necessary understanding and knowledge 
of what programs are, (or what it means/needs to correctly emulate one) 
or that you are just nothing but a pathological lying idiot who just 
doesn't care about what is actually true.