Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:01:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <27a1f3ca5697d57b9bc29add378db8bdb42e33da@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
	<2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
	<e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
	<64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
	<b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
	<d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
	<8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
	<TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
	<2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
	<v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
	<06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
	<v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
	<LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:01:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2633776"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4730
Lines: 63

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
>>>>>>>>> "return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
>>>>>>>> correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of
>>>>>>>> DDD by HHH)
>>>>>>>> will reach that return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
>>>>>>> contradiction in terms.
>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of
>>>>>>> DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
>>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>> A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
>>>>> complete emulation would never halt.
>>>> What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>>>>
>>> Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>>>
>> Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
>> simulations.
> *You corrected Joes most persistent error*
> She made sure to ignore this correction.
Would you please point it out again?

>> But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly
>> halt.
> A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion until
> aborted.
Yes, HHH can't simulate itself completely. I guess no simulator can.

> Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required to correctly
> predict the behavior of their inputs, thus the behavior of non-inputs is
> outside of their domain.
The input is just the description of D, which halts if H aborts.
The non-input would be if D called a non-aborting simulator,
because it is not being simulated by one that doesn't abort.
We only care about the recursive construction, not your implementation
of D that does NOT call its own simulator.

> *This make the words you say below moot*
>> You have seen that yourself, e.g. with main() calling DDD(), or
>> UTM(DDD), or HHH1(DDD).  [All of those simulate DDD to completion and
>> see DDD return.  What I said earlier was that HHH(DDD) does not
>> simulate DDD to completion, which I think everyone recognises - it
>> aborts before DDD() halts.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.