Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:33:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <67258baef6c95e445a994be2e613f8f08ebe2610@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me> <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ftsp$3uffi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 02:33:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2494910"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9ftsp$3uffi$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4968
Lines: 101

On 8/13/24 11:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> We prove that the simulation is correct.
>>>>> Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
>>>>> string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
>>>> not interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
>>>> is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
>>>> non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>
>> Contradiction in terminus.
>> A correct simulation is not possible. 
> 
> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.

Not a valid stipulation, you can not stipulate something to be "correct".

If you mean to stipulate a MEANING for corect, then you just locked your 
self out of using "correct" in the normal meaning, and thus locked you 
self out of proving anything.

Using your "stipulation" of correct, to mean that you are stipulating 
what will be considered to be a "Correct Simulation" for your previous 
statement, that make that statement FALSE, because ANY DDD that calls an 
HHH that will simulate for just N instructions and then return will be 
HALTING by simple inspection.

Yes, the simulation doesn't reach the final state, but partial 
simulation don't show what happens as a final state of the machine (or 
if it reaches on).

You keep repeating this error, proving that you seem to have a learning 
disability that prevents you from understanding the true meaning of words.

If you want to change your statement to be an actruism, then you need to 
say something like:  "It is true that no partial or complete correct 
simulaiton of DDD by HHH will ever reach the return instruction of DDD".

The key is you need simulation, not DDD to be the subject of the verb 
reach, so that is what you are actually talking about, and what reaches 
(or not) the final state.

> 
> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS EITHER*
> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is
> sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited
> simulation.

Nopee, proven otherwise.

> 
> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS EITHER*
> Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required
> to correctly predict the behavior of their inputs.

Which is the behavior of the PROGRAM represented by the input, which is 
the behavior of the ACTUAL EXECUTION of that program.

Definitions, you know.

> 
> *MOST JUST DON'T GET THIS*
> 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.
> 

Right, but the behavior of the PROGRAM DDD, *IS* the behavior of the input.


You apparently just don't understand the basic definitins, because you 
CHOSE to not learn them.