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: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 12:25:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <35492cbd39104f784a92c0afc366d73e39d34ea8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 16:26:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3398880"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3863
Lines: 77

On 4/6/25 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/6/2025 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-05 16:45:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-04-05 06:18:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-04-04 01:27:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really think that anyone knowing the C
>>>>>>> programming language is too stupid to see that
>>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone knowing the C language can see that if DDD() does not halt
>>>>>> it means that HHH(DDD) does not halt. The knowledge that that
>>>>>> means that HHH is not a decider is possible but not required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Perpetually ignoring this is not any actual rebuttal at all*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination
>>>>> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
>>>>> would otherwise prevent its own termination. The
>>>>> only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that
>>>>> deciders must always halt.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, because a termination analyzer is not required to halt.
>>>
>>> Why say things that you know are untrue?
>>
>> The term "termination analyzer" is used about programs that do not halt
>> on every input. There is no strict derfiniton of the term so there is
>> no requirement about halting.
>>
>> On the first page of https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~zkincaid/pub/ 
>> pldi21.pdf
>> in the first parapgraph of Introduction:
>>
>>     For example, termination analyzers may themselves fail to 
>> terminate on
>>     some input programs, or ...
>>
>>> A termination analyzer that doesn't halt
>>> would flunk every proof of total program correctness.
>>
>> There are no total termination analyzers.
>>
> 
> Total proof of correctness does not require a halt
> decider, it only requires a termination analyzer
> with inputs in its domain.
> 

WRONG.

To prove Turing wrong, you need to make a machine that does what he 
proves can not be done.

Note, a "Termination Analyzer" is a term of art, and is something 
STRICTER than a Halt Decider, as it takes as its input just the 
description of the algorithm, and decides if that algorithm will halt 
for *ALL* inputs.

In the case of an algorithm that doesn't use an input, it becomes the 
same thing.

Your problem is you have forgotten (or maybe never knew) what the 
problem you have claimed to be working on for decades actually means.

This shows as you keep on trying to claim strawmen as your answer.