Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological
 inputs?
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:14:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <1027isi$on4i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 23:14:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a";
	logging-data="810130"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+de30ZZPgCbR6c1KtVYlFW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DVxBpLo3C45hBUWBEykO4cAZzfo=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-4, 6/9/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

The official "received view" of this is that the best
we can possibly do is to do nothing and give up.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD)
specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its
*simulated "return" instruction final halt state* because
this input specifies that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD.

*Every rebuttal to this changes the words*

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer