Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:13:16 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <1030kbc$3pfos$4@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org>
 <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me> <102u3et$31q0g$4@dont-email.me>
 <102ufv8$35emj$1@dont-email.me>
 <733af6784ff4a553b3b5628e4eb5de915decee9e@i2pn2.org>
 <102vrl8$3ghaa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:13:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b3242f0006281feb3e630ddfcd25d9c8";
	logging-data="3981084"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wzy/8sdwck0C2wobtGANw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s5RIKL6yUWQ9SZWYSmkLkAgR5LQ=
In-Reply-To: <102vrl8$3ghaa$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 19.jun.2025 om 04:11 schreef olcott:
> On 6/18/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/18/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2025 5:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 03:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
>>>>>>> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
>>>>>>> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus 
>>>>>> there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that 
>>>>>> you claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation 
>>>>>> (which in this context means complete)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> All of them do abort and their simulation does not need an abort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *It is not given that any of them abort*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But it either does or it doesn't, and different HHHs give different 
>> DDD so you can't compare their behavior.
>>
> 
> My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any
> termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist
> will never stop running unless aborted.

A vacuous statement because no such termination analyser exist.
The candidate you present does abort, so it does not need to be aborted 
when simulated.

> *No one has ever been able to refute this*
> 

No need to refute a vacuous statement.
This has been presented to you many times, but you close your eyes and 
pretend that it did not happen. Very childish.