Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about
 this point
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:25:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <1029pq2$1ah2f$16@dont-email.me>
References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me>
 <87h60pioab.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1025kvd$aqju$2@dont-email.me>
 <87cybdin7o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <1025mfg$b964$1@dont-email.me>
 <1026ct7$g0hl$1@dont-email.me> <1026rnn$j3rp$2@dont-email.me>
 <1028rj0$153ga$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:25:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0";
	logging-data="1393743"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KIDMNqsMTGOJS/Ww8VyOA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LSDEIz+J1KRTI8ulgKWM5n6Q3W0=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-10, 6/10/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1028rj0$153ga$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/10/2025 3:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.jun.2025 om 16:39 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/9/2025 5:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:04 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:54 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:31 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Every rebuttal to this changes the words*
>>>>>>> Do not imply that I support your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not implying anything. I am directly stating
>>>>>> that you have agreed that when DDD is correctly simulated
>>>>>> by HHH that it cannot possibly reach its own simulated
>>>>>> "return" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Endless recursion is endless recursion.  Correctly simulated endless
>>>>> recursion is endless recursion. 
>>>>
>>>> Great. No one else besides you and I agree that DDD
>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>> *simulated "return" instruction final halt state*
>>>
>>> Nobody denied it. You are fighting windmills.
>>> We all agree that your HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation 
>>> of the input. An input that specifies a halting program, but HHH 
>>> cannot simulate it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  This has no useful or interesting
>>>>> consequences.  Do you agree?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is very useful because it is isomorphic to this:
>>>> (The standard Halting Problem counter-example input)
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, it shows that simulation is not the right way to try to 
>>> refute the proof of the halting theorem, because a simulator will 
>>> never be able to simulate itself correctly up to the end.
>>>
>>
>> It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-terminating
>> input to be simulated up to its non-existent end.
>>
> 
> It is even more stupid to ignore the halting part of the input (with a 
> premature abort) and claim it is not halting.

It waiting forever is not long enough (and it is)
then your idea about "premature abort" is incorrect.

That you do not understand that unless the outermost
HHH aborts that no HHH ever aborts is your mistake
not mine.


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