Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<1035vdm$10d9c$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 12:52:54 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 70 Message-ID: <1035vdm$10d9c$1@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> <1030kqk$3pfor$1@dont-email.me> <10319mv$3u901$7@dont-email.me> <103394q$m26r$1@dont-email.me> <1033pf6$25t1$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:52:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3930a4aa5417f4b825bb0546758e64d0"; logging-data="1062188"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BgDE9aKazQe0+8+Gy+AFE" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:3y2QF0kn3LJJPiaSTBvPsnwGho8= On 2025-06-20 13:59:02 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/20/2025 4:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:17 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/19/2025 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott: >>>>> 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* >>>>> >>>> >>>> At least it is true for all aborting ones, such as the one you >>>> presented in Halt7.c. >>> >>> My claim is that each of the above functions correctly >>> simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly >>> exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH. >>> Can you affirm or correctly refute this? > >> Yes, I confirmed many times that we can confirm this vacuous claim, >> because no such HHH exists. All of them fail to do a correct simulation >> up to the point where they can see whether the input specifies a >> halting program. > > if DDD correctly simulated by any simulating termination > analyzer HHH never aborts its simulation of DDD then that HHH is not interesting. -- Mikko