Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<1038glb$e9bd$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:59:23 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 83 Message-ID: <1038glb$e9bd$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> <1035vdm$10d9c$1@dont-email.me> <1036qg0$16lpk$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 10:59:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="60859ac7620042bf94a2d32aaaaf381d"; logging-data="468333"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19movvKwWrs5EdqIvKB/hjX" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:9I9rRrHcpRSnsQSk1kTuEb+IfkI= On 2025-06-21 17:34:55 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/21/2025 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> 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. > > *then the HP proofs are proved to be wrong* No, they are not. You have not solved the halting problem and that (in addition to all proofs) supports the claim that halting problem is unsolvable. In order to show that a proof is wrong you need to show an error in the proof. Even then the conclusion is proven unless you can show an error in every proof of that conclusion. -- Mikko