Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:44:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <1017lj4$3cgvm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4>
 <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me>
 <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me>
 <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org>
 <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me>
 <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org>
 <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <1013tkq$2h8vj$3@dont-email.me>
 <1014ls5$2lsi8$7@dont-email.me> <1016hsk$35agb$1@dont-email.me>
 <101782n$39etk$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 20:44:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72d376db465050d14ae69b4d25507bb1";
	logging-data="3556342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cB+Y+9YGGSogPBr/KHz7+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ajKQBM6yokwmbhOMeMMSLhurOKs=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <101782n$39etk$6@dont-email.me>

Op 28.mei.2025 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
> On 5/28/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2025 3:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself and Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott have to fight against.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against 
>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> too, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing would be left.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according
>>>>>>>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from 
>>>>>>>>>> the beginning
>>>>>>>>>> to end.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point.
>>>>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86
>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>>> final halt state, thus is correctly rejected as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does 
>>>>>>>> that, and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD 
>>>>>>>> is "completed" to contain that same code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then
>>>>>>> DDD() and HHH() never stop running proving that
>>>>>>> the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-TERMINATING
>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact 
>>>>>> that DDD() will halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit*
>>>>> It is a tautology that every input that must be
>>>>> aborted to prevent the infinite simulation of this
>>>>> input DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR.
>>>>>
>>>> Counter-factual. There is no need to prevent infinite simulation, 
>>>> because the input includes DDD with all functions called by DDD, 
>>>> including the code in Halt7.c that specifies the abort.
>>>
>>> Unless the outmost HHH aborts then none of them
>>> abort because they all of the exact same machine code.
>>>
>>
>> Only when you also change the input. Changing input from a HHH that 
>> aborts to a HHH that does not abort is changing the subject.
>>
> 
> It either every HHH aborts or no HHH aborts
> because they all have the same machine code.

So, you admit to change the input when you change the simulator. For 
each HHH you are talking about an other input. In that way you confuse 
yourself. Each input has a different behaviour. But none of your HHH is 
able to simulate itself up to the end correctly.
Changing the input is not allowed.

> 
> Simulating Termination analyzers must PREDICT
> non-terminating behavior, thus are inherently
> required to report on what the behavior would be.

Indeed, and when the input is a pointer to memory that contains a HHH 
that aborts, the input specifies a halting program and HHH must predict 
*that* specified behaviour. Not the behaviour of a non-aborting HHH that 
is not in the memory given as input.

> 
> To require a STA to report on the actual behavior
> of a non-terminating input is to require them to
> never report. This is not allowed.

It is not allowed to report on a non-input. It must predict about the 
behaviour of the halting program in the input.

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55             push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
> 
> It is a tautology that every input to a simulating
> termination analyzer would never stop running unless
> aborted specifies a non-terminating sequence of
> configurations.

Indeed, but we know that the simulated HHH aborts, so it would stop even 
if not aborted. It is a tautology that no abort is needed to complete 
the simulation with halting behaviour.
The non-terminating sequence is only in your dreams, not in the program 
specified in the memory pointed to by the input of HHH.
That HHH has a bug, so that it does not see this behaviour, does not 
change the verified fact that a halting behaviour is specified. It only 
illustrates the bug in HHH.