Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:20:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <307da0d6504494d6bba2b52b14d735d408b53c54@i2pn2.org>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me>
 <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me>
 <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org>
 <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org>
 <ve76ad$2reoe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 02:20:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1341090"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <ve76ad$2reoe$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5521
Lines: 109

On 10/9/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone 
>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one sensible
>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of 
>>>>>>> articles, ago
>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but 
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly 
>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not 
>>>>>>> using HHH
>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you 
>>>>>>> are trying
>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more 
>>>>>>> than one
>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you 
>>>>>>> are, in
>>>>>>> fact, trying to help.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more 
>>>>>> progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the 
>>>>>> regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody 
>>>>>> off the deserted streets at night.
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.
>>>>
>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what you 
>>>> do)
>>>>
>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- 
>>>> terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>>>>
>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to 
>>>> return 0.
>>>>
>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>> exist never returns
>>>>
>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an 
>>>> HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt.
>>>>
>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that never 
>>>> returns an answer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*
>>
>> WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>>
>>>
>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>> exist never returns
>>
>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly executed. 
> 
> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID !!!
> 

So, you are admitting you don't know what your words mean? Since that 
*IS* what they mean. Your failure to even attempt to refute my grammer 
analysis shows you accept my logic, or at least can't fight it.

So, What exactly did you mean your words to say?

Remember, if it isn't about the behavior of the actual program DDD, then 
you are just admitting that you are lying it indicating non-termination 
of the program represented by the input, and thus lying about what you 
are doing.

The fact that a partial emulation doesn't reach the end is not even good 
evidence, let allone proof, of non-terminating behavior.

And, since each DDD that uses a different version of HHH is a different 
input, the others don't matter unless you admit that you aren't talking 
about programs, and thus not talking about Computation Theory.

You are just backing yourself into the corner with your lies and deciet.