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? ---Truth Maker
 Maximalism
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 10:57:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <104bi0s$1hqln$8@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$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$2@dont-email.me> <104ak3k$jhv7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 17:57:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3f20c216653e9576f04ef75b87489cd0";
	logging-data="1632951"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1kM8agG1EJgPT5TzoGtnO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JavNw0NFFQUdvTHh1/lMqenSFps=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250705-4, 7/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104ak3k$jhv7$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/5/2025 2:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

*It has never been whether it is finite or infinite*
It has always been: Would DDD simulated by HHH reach
its simulated final halt state in an infinite simulation?

> Not understanding the difference between *finite* recursion and 
> *infinite* recursion shows who is not bright enough.

No it shows that you are not bothering to pay close attention
or like Richard cannot remember anything that I ever said in
prior posts.

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