Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:05:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d818787a167fc3b04a87c6386c5e3c746cec8738@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
	<v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
	<e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
	<v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
	<73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
	<v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
	<09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
	<v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
	<97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
	<v7hftt$3o7r5$1@dont-email.me>
	<f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@i2pn2.org>
	<v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
	<1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
	<v7hnu6$3pd9s$1@dont-email.me>
	<f0dda3e0d0e85081d8ce0cdd494f5f1f8f8c89e3@i2pn2.org>
	<v7huen$3u1jc$3@dont-email.me> <v7hvdo$3ua28$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 09:05:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4030309"; 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
Bytes: 5497
Lines: 72

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:31:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/20/2024 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt this is a design requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH must abort the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You missed a couple details:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> classified as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they and the simulator halt on their own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH aborts and halts, it is not needed to abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, because it will halt of its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever needs to abort the simulation of its input and HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will stop running?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it not need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist aborts its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?

>>>>>>>>>>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point,
>>>>>>>>>>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for
>>>>>>>>>>> it to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD
>>>>>>>>>> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.
>>>>>>>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code
>>>>>>>>> does, so can not "Kill" it.

>>>> When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input this emulated
>>>> input immediately stops running.
The input doesn't even run. The simulator is the only thing in execution.
>>> The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops
>>> doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.
>> *If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running*
The simulated program would still be non-halting.

>> DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
>> its own return instruction.
> Only DDD correctly emulated by HHH maps the finite string of the x86
> machine code of DDD to the behavior that it actually specifies.
Almost correct. Other simulators may map it too, to the behaviour
of the direct execution. HHH doesn't.

-- 
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.