Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker
 Maximalism
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:26:41 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <104ak3k$jhv7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me> <103dp34$1toq7$1@dont-email.me>
 <103eeie$22250$12@dont-email.me> <103g682$2k9u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <103h1ch$2q86f$5@dont-email.me> <103j40h$3col5$1@dont-email.me>
 <103n9si$ecm8$1@dont-email.me> <103okoh$r8lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <103oql4$rq7e$7@dont-email.me> <103qu9v$1egu3$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rh5r$1hc53$7@dont-email.me> <103th0k$22kgq$1@dont-email.me>
 <103uin0$292c0$7@dont-email.me> <104041c$2nne5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1040hq4$2ql69$3@dont-email.me> <1042l0e$3cik5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1046v71$ctak$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f6ef2a106265ec3d3aaaefb0da94ff758f75f7e@i2pn2.org>
 <1048gmn$qd4f$1@dont-email.me>
 <08a80a1cb9e11694118540c65776156824a9b2f2@i2pn2.org>
 <1049344$u8im$1@dont-email.me>
 <1bd3d2511b572607198892bbd8244736393d6a55@i2pn2.org>
 <1049716$v1s9$3@dont-email.me>
 <2297e3c0518e7cdf159789a5ac25a7138356cf8e@i2pn2.org>
 <104999c$vq40$1@dont-email.me>
 <907fa5c239c233a62325cc3a4093ba822fcc86b9@i2pn2.org>
 <1049kfh$12849$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 07:26:45 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30d1ef84de524ef8f7b7780dce4af3e6";
	logging-data="640999"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ui7l1gxCaXufbizqq0mX7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:c00Q2/k7nh/dQtx0+Ppywc0/854=
In-Reply-To: <1049kfh$12849$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 05.jul.2025 om 00:26 schreef olcott:
> On 7/4/2025 3:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/4/25 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2025 2:09 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 13:37:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2025 1:23 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 12:30:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 8:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:16:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:55 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are effectively saying that all programs that start with a 
>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>> to HHH are the same.
>>>>> The nesting is too deep to see what you are responding to.
>>>> Lol, you could have responded immediately. You know how to look up 
>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes it is, HHH should compute whether the code of DD halts when 
>>>>>>>> run.
>>>>>>>> You can't be thinking that is uncomputable.
>>>>>>> Likewise we should also compute the area of a square circle with a
>>>>>>> radius of 2.
>>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that you can't compute what the code of
>>>>>> DDD does when executed?
>>>> Don't complain later.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Partial halt deciders have never been allowed to report on the
>>>>>>> behavior of any directly executed Turing machine. Instead of this 
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> have used the behavior that their input machine description 
>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>> as a proxy.
>>>>>> And you think that DDD's direct execution is not specified by its
>>>>>> description?
>>>>> I HAVE PROVEN THAT DDD CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HAVE THE 
>>>>> SAME
>>>>> BEHAVIOR AS DDD() THOUSANDS OF TIMES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS
>>>> No disagreement; not my question.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Now for the first time we see that DDD correctly simulated by HHH 
>>>>>>> *IS
>>>>>>> NOT A PROXY* for the behavior of the directly executed DDD().
>>>>>> Indeed, HHH does not simulate it correctly. (You can't mean that 
>>>>>> DDD is
>>>>>> *executed* incorrectly.)
>>>>> You are using the wrong measure of correct.
>>>> So DDD specifies at least two different behaviours?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Yes. This sums it up quite well* (its only 1.5 pages long)
>>> https://claude.ai/share/da9b8e3f-eb16-42ca-a9e8-913f4b88202c
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then your system LIES and is based on lies.
>>
>> "Code" is deterministic, and thus every instruction when starting from 
>> the same state will always do the same thing.
>>
> 
> That you are not bright enough to detect the recursive
> simulation non terminating behavior pattern is no rebuttal
> at all.
> 

There is only *finite* recursive simulation, so everybody bright enough 
understands that there is no non-terminating behaviour.
Not understanding the difference between *finite* recursion and 
*infinite* recursion shows who is not bright enough.