Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 14:23:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <1039l7p$n1od$2@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org>
 <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2413b15420503b75be7b81f32a96e9a72c251fa@i2pn2.org>
 <102ugc3$35emj$2@dont-email.me> <vzD4Q.1265580$lZjd.937261@fx05.ams4>
 <1030bat$3nqlm$1@dont-email.me> <1030cm3$3o34h$2@dont-email.me>
 <10337ev$lrcj$1@dont-email.me> <103453k$4ms9$6@dont-email.me>
 <1035vgs$10dm8$1@dont-email.me> <1036qhv$16lpk$4@dont-email.me>
 <1038gqh$eb9o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 21:23:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66fa87458275bba6d41e4f6f2917b163";
	logging-data="755469"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZNR7vO3YMtbSVsENkeea/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mq/SRvrTfQeOiRWZKMFv4M2Rsjc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250622-4, 6/22/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1038gqh$eb9o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/22/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-21 17:35:58 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/21/2025 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-20 17:17:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-19 07:02:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 1:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-18 18:28:43 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:53:07 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/25 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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* *none of them 
>>>>>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever stop running 
>>>>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about the fact that if they abort, they never did a correct
>>>>>>>>>> simulation,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *You are not addressing THE EXACT POINT*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When HHH never aborts any of the above functions then*
>>>>>>>>> (a) None of the functions ever stops running.
>>>>>>>>> (b) Each of the above functions stops running anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to be clear that you are not making a claim about general
>>>>>>>> undecidability but a claim about the SPECIFIC CASE of 
>>>>>>>> pathological self
>>>>>>>> reference present in the classic Halting Problem definition .. 
>>>>>>>> the trolls
>>>>>>>> here (especially Damon and Mikko) like to ignore that you are 
>>>>>>>> doing that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is not doing even that. What he is doing is totally outside of 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> scope of the halting problem. He has already verified that DDD halts
>>>>>>> and that HHH does not report that DDD halts. Nothing else is 
>>>>>>> relevant
>>>>>>> in context of the halting problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If his intent is to deceive he should avoid clarity at least as much
>>>>>>> as he has recently done. His switch from "halting decider" to
>>>>>>> "termination analyzer"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> is a more accurate term for what I am referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really as you are only talking about programs that do not take
>>>>> any input. Termination analysis is about programs that do take input.
>>>>
>>>> Inputs are typical yet not required.
>>>
>>> Ability to analyze (at least some) programs that take inputs is
>>> required.
>>
>> No that is wrong.
> 
> Can you quote any author allowing a termination analyzer that is restricted
> to programs that do not take any input?
> 

The ability to correctly determine the halt status
of at least one program that takes no inputs meets
the requirement of being a termination analyzer for
that one program.

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