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 11:53:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 135
Message-ID: <103c0r8$1cme6$3@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$1@dont-email.me> <1039l7p$n1od$2@dont-email.me>
 <103auui$13u7i$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 18:54:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aba4fd94e23f35feda5a08373e14adce";
	logging-data="1464774"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UB96RxDPcyOX5wDryKSgc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7DaZCk643YpYam7rej7htvooDjY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103auui$13u7i$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250623-2, 6/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/23/2025 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-22 19:23:37 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It does not prove that all requirements are met, in particular the
> requirement that the analyzer must be able to analyze programs that
> do take input.
> 

That is a bogus requirement.
As long as a simulating termination analyzer correctly
determines the halt status of a single input then it is
a correct STA for this input.

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