Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0c8e966e23bb1d71fb16f8f4f8e3b78cc8342a23@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
	<4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
	<vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
	<920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
	<vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqg7tm$3qhke$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqg9fc$3qol2$8@dont-email.me> <vqg9mo$3qhke$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqge88$3radn$2@dont-email.me>
	<85c64c4b79a0c8ff209e41717c9a94e2e9dffc52@i2pn2.org>
	<vqhisc$5r7r$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:22:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3443177"; 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: 5084
Lines: 60

Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:06:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 3:17 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:40:56 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>> (<X>,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 isn't claimed to be total. Have you tried running it on itself or on
>> a program similar to DD (instead of calling HHH, ...)?
> Termination analyzers are not required to be infallible.
Neither do they disprove the undecidability of halting.

-- 
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.