Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 19:40:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a1575655d1aa61b76cab6d865b61a075b7808c2e@i2pn2.org>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org>
 <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me> <102u3et$31q0g$4@dont-email.me>
 <102ufv8$35emj$1@dont-email.me>
 <733af6784ff4a553b3b5628e4eb5de915decee9e@i2pn2.org>
 <102vrl8$3ghaa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 23:49:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1222722"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <102vrl8$3ghaa$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/18/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/18/2025 8:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/18/25 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2025 5:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 03:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
>>>>>>> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
>>>>>>> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus 
>>>>>> there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that 
>>>>>> you claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation 
>>>>>> (which in this context means complete)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted*
>>>>
>>>> All of them do abort and their simulation does not need an abort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *It is not given that any of them abort*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But it either does or it doesn't, and different HHHs give different 
>> DDD so you can't compare their behavior.
>>
> 
> My claim is that DDD correctly simulated by any
> termination analyzer HHH that can possibly exist
> will never stop running unless aborted.
> *No one has ever been able to refute this*
> 

But the only HHH that DOES simulate any part of THIS DDD, is THIS HHH, 
and if it aborts to answer, it doesn't correctly simulate this input, so 
you LIE that it does.

If this HHH DOES correct simulate this DDD, then it can't abort, and 
thus doesn't give the answer.

The problem is you logic just LIES about what HHH and DDD are, because 
they CAN NOT be the programs of the proof and do what you claim, as you 
claim can only work if they are not programs,

Thus, all you are doing is proving that you are just a liar, and just 
don't know what you are talking about.

So, WHICH lie are you going to admit to, our, are you just admitting 
that you logic is based on lying?

Sorry, those are the only options you have.

SInce only ONE HHH simulates the DDD that THIS HHH is simulating (since 
you have admitted that the code for this HHH is in the memory that this 
HHH is seeing when it simulates this DDD, and thus that is part of the 
input).

Either this HHH:

1) Correctly Simulates the input as you claim asserts, at which point it 
CAN'T abort or you are admitting to ly9ing about it "correctly 
simulating" the input. And thus it just never returns an answer, or

2) IT does abort its simulation, and thus you LIE that some HHH 
correctly simulated it, since it doesn't, and no other HHH simulates 
this exact input, or

3) you are just admitting that yoru logic system thinks that DIFFERENT 
programs are the same, and thus based on LYING.

So, which lie are you admitting to, or by your silence admit that you do 
all of them (since you keep on changing your story, a common trait of 
liars).