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: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:08:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <103auh3$13r4l$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> <1030a1j$3ng4g$1@dont-email.me> <1030cg9$3o34h$1@dont-email.me> <1030k4e$3pfos$3@dont-email.me> <1033744$lp5p$1@dont-email.me> <10344pu$4ms9$5@dont-email.me> <1035v1e$10aok$1@dont-email.me> <1036qcm$16lpk$2@dont-email.me> <1038fve$e59u$1@dont-email.me> <1039bgi$k7rv$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:08:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ff9eeb82472defb391a609f5929552bc";
	logging-data="1174677"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+R2KqVgraC20Gecd4mN9F"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ny0pTch8buVMzCZkFUyj1EsZMA8=

On 2025-06-22 16:37:37 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/22/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-21 17:33:10 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 6/21/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-06-20 17:12:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/20/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 09:09:34 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 08:59 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-18 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It is known a priori that HHH either does or does not abort.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Very good.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If HHH does
>>>>>>>>> not abort it does not terminate the simulation of DDD and therefore
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> DDD never stops running.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> because HHH never stops running and therefore this HHH
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> not report correctly. If HHH does abort it reports that DDD does not
>>>>>>>>> halt, which is incorrect as in that case DDD does halt. HHH is correct
>>>>>>>>> about DDD only if it does abort its simulation and reports "halts".
>>>>>>>>> But you HHH does not do that.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So, both the aborting and the non-aborting HHH do not provide a correct report.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My HHH, if given DDD for input, does abort and does give the correct report
>>>>>> but gives the worng report if given DD.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> No, because that is not well claimed. You have used "HHH" in at least
>>>> two different meanings and it is not clear which meaning is intended.
>>> 
>>> *clearer words*
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Not sufficiently clearer than the previous attempt.
> 
> Since you did not say exactly what seems unclear to
> you I am taking this as a dishonest dodge away from the point.

You are lying. I did say. Your second attermpt does not clarify what
I did say was unclear. You didn't say what it did clarify, so
apparently nothing. You just claimed that an exact copy is clearer.

-- 
Mikko