Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker
 Maximalism FULL_TRACE
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 15:42:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <49480dece30605ff692baac78083722e2a25b7cf@i2pn2.org>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
	<66c00d5703907e846f537310dfb201485e1b7b2a@i2pn2.org>
	<10492eb$u8g5$1@dont-email.me> <104b5l9$fnl$1@news.muc.de>
	<104ben3$1hqln$1@dont-email.me> <104bt5h$1l1g$1@news.muc.de>
	<104bunk$1kcb5$1@dont-email.me> <104did7$hlh$1@news.muc.de>
	<104e164$2852a$1@dont-email.me> <104e6nd$12ua$1@news.muc.de>
	<104e93k$29rpg$1@dont-email.me> <104ed4k$223c$1@news.muc.de>
	<104ehua$2c91h$1@dont-email.me> <104epfu$nqi$1@news.muc.de>
	<104fdma$2n8gq$1@dont-email.me> <104gkad$2f8e$1@news.muc.de>
	<10515pj$2v547$1@dont-email.me>
	<c1fa8b9a19b4a102d7f5c2d58cf4b9b127c30955@i2pn2.org>
	<1051r18$36s16$3@dont-email.me>
	<a6849743e4a6af25dc93b3b269e1d39002488efe@i2pn2.org>
	<105394s$3ev5b$15@dont-email.me>
	<f5a2ebe0935b2c891a06650e89c28fbcc0560f61@i2pn2.org>
	<1054he7$3s0eq$6@dont-email.me>
	<e510d4751825282a6858172b5e8516d1c1ec789a@i2pn2.org>
	<5erdQ.67036$r61e.50840@fx11.ams4>
	<b7541a89c5db2d0db513455cd7b83349544406ee@i2pn2.org>
	<1058fss$pn5l$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 15:42:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="892860"; 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

Am Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:18:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/15/2025 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/25 7:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 07:42:56 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/14/25 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/14/2025 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>>>> Right, but the OBJECT that measures that it the exectution of the
>>>>>> Program, or a complete simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are emulated according to the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 language by some HHH, no DDD ever reaches its
>>>>> "ret" instruction.
>>>>> Do you really think that you can get away with disagreeing with the
>>>>> x86 language?
>>>>>
>>>> Why do YOU think you can?
>>>> Your above "Input" can be simulated past the instruction at 0000219A
>>>> because we lack the data of what is next.
>>>> Your problem is you started with the lie to yourself that you could
>>>> change the rules, and thus made yourself into a pathological liar
>>>> that has just lost the rules of the game.
>>>> In this case, your problem is you tried to redefine what non-halting
>>>> means, becuase your mind just can't handle the actual definition, and
>>>> some of its consequences. Partial emulations, by themselves, NEVER
>>>> define a program to be non-halting, only complete execution or
>>>> complete simulation. PERIOD.
>>>
>>> No. Partial simulation is a perfectly valid approach for a partial
>>> decider.
>> 
>> Yes, but not as the thing that defines that an input is non-halting.
>> You need to use the partial simulation to actually prove that the full
>> correct simulation of that input would not halt. And that input doesn't
>> change to use that correct simulator, it still calls the partial
>> simulator as that is what is in the input.
>> 
> Been doing that for three years and you keep dishonestly pretending that
> you don't see this.

No, the full, i.e. unaborted simulation of DDD by any pure simulator
would halt.

-- 
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.