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: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:40:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <103h1p3$2q86f$6@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> <103c0r8$1cme6$3@dont-email.me>
 <103dp9t$1tq4v$1@dont-email.me> <103eemj$22250$13@dont-email.me>
 <103g6es$2kbf2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:40:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2a79ef080f15f5ebab8247a019f1c31b";
	logging-data="2957519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Z2y6hbBANlkk2fN6srzJP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oZIvRTZO+EehVsn9ispGAk3a6Uw=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250625-2, 6/25/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <103g6es$2kbf2$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/25/2025 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-24 15:02:43 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/24/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-23 16:53:59 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. It is essential to the meaning of the term.
>>> A nut cracker is not a hammer although both can produce the same
>>> effenct on nuts.
>>>
>>
>> A termination analyzer determines the halt status
>> of a program for every input that this program takes.
>>
>> When it does this for a program that takes no inputs
>> it is still doing this for every input that this
>> program takes.
> 
> You mean a nutcracker is a hammer?
> 

A termination analyzer correctly determines the halt
status of an input program specification for every
input that this program can take. A program specification
taking  zero inputs is merely the simpler case of this
same algorithm.

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