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
Subject: Re: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle
 pathological inputs?
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 23:23:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d97ffc438505da8a4961c1cb2e4d3d66cf76d071@i2pn2.org>
References: <1027isi$on4i$1@dont-email.me> <1028n53$1440t$1@dont-email.me>
 <1029pla$1ah2f$15@dont-email.me>
 <f901f7cb6bb240e46f2f64f93f3571ccfe8b90d2@i2pn2.org>
 <xl%1Q.285105$VBab.37836@fx08.ams4> <102a34q$1fcc5$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 03:38:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4192395"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102a34q$1fcc5$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/10/25 4:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2025 2:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:53:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/25 1:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-09 21:14:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The official "received view" of this is that the best we can possibly
>>>>>> do is to do nothing and give up.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no official view about "the best". What is the best depends
>>>>> on what one needs and wants. Some may think that the best they can do
>>>>> is to waste their life in trying to do the impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is not at all impossible to create a termination analyzer that
>>>> reports on the behavior specified by the input to HHH(DDD). It was
>>>> never correct to define a termination analyzer any other way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Right, it is just a fact that it is impossible for HHH to be shuch a
>>> analyzer.
>>>
>>> A CORRECT Temrination analyzer of the input to HHH(DDD), that is to the
>>> termination analysis of DDD, is to say it halts, since the HHH(DDD) that
>>> DDD will call  will return non-halting to that DDD, and it will then
>>> halt.
>>
>> But it will never "return" because it is infinitely recursive; the
>> simulation is aborted and a halting result if non-halting is returned
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> /Flibble
> 
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its "return" statement final halt state.

And an HHH that correctly simulates this input can not ever give an answer.

> 
> If your identical twin brother robbed a liquor
> state that DOES NOT MAKE YOU GUILTY. In this
> same way the behavior of the function that calls
> HHH(DDD) says NOTHING about the behavior that
> the input to HHH(DDD) specifies.

Of course it does, since the input is a representation of it, and the 
decider is REQUIRED to answer about the machine the input is a 
reprentation of.

Of course, it could be that you are just admitting tha that you have 
been lying for years that you actually built your system by the rules of 
the proof you claimed you were following (perhaps because you were too 
stupid to understand it). As the definition of the proof input program 
is that it "calls" the decider with a representation of itself.

if HHH(DDD) isn't asking HHH to decide on the program DDD, then you are 
just admitting that your whole proof was built on a lie.

Which sure seems to be the case here, one that has been pointed out 
before, and you haven't explained how this isn't the case.

I guess (until you show how it is possible to not be the case) we can 
just take it as an admission that you know you have just been lying like 
that and you know it.


> For 90 years people stupidly assumed that a
> halt decider must report on the behavior of
> its caller.
> 

No, it must report on the machine its input represents, even if it is 
its caller.

You are just showing you don't understand what the question actually is.

As said, you have effectively admitted it, and need to come up with a 
lot of explainations to show that isn't the case.