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: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:51:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <103c0mb$1cme6$2@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$3@dont-email.me> <1038glb$e9bd$1@dont-email.me>
 <1039kq9$n1od$1@dont-email.me> <103aupj$13t8e$1@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 18:51:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aba4fd94e23f35feda5a08373e14adce";
	logging-data="1464774"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19939uj/VFmmcSS7Rsxcz6+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KgbsCrHqLR5fD+ELb2bZH0mSQ3c=
In-Reply-To: <103aupj$13t8e$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250623-2, 6/23/2025), Outbound message

On 6/23/2025 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-22 19:16:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/22/2025 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> ChatGPT corrected my words and agreed that I have
>> correctly refuted the generic HP proof technique
>> where an input has been defined to only do the
>> opposite of whatever value that its decider decides.
>> https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76
> 
> Doesn't matter. Only proofs matter. So far you have not proven anything
> and it is unlikely you could prove anything even after asking ChatGPT
> for help.
> 
>> The ChatGPT that evaluated and affirmed my analysis
>> of HHH(DDD) one year ago could only handle 4000 tokens
>> thus could not understand HHH(DD).
>>
>> ChatGPT with GPT-4-turbo — can handle up to 128,000 tokens
>> of context in a single conversation, immediately understood
>> HHH(DD) within the context of the conversation of HHH(DDD).
> 
> ChatGPT does not understand. Whether you do is still not determined.
> 
> Anyway,
>>> 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.
> 

That you do not understand that any set of expressions of
language that show another expression of language is
necessarily true is its proof is your ignorance not mine.

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