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: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 19:45:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e07209bc5895f602a3409e025bb9457edb3b7a20@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> <1030a1j$3ng4g$1@dont-email.me>
 <1030cg9$3o34h$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 23:49:09 -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: <1030cg9$3o34h$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/19/25 2:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/19/2025 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-06-18 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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*
>>
>> It is known a priori that HHH either does or does not abort. 
> 
> Very good.
> 
>> If HHH does
>> not abort it does not terminate the simulation of DDD and therefore 
> 
> DDD never stops running.

Sure it does, if the HHH that it is built on gives an answer.

Your problem is you think that the HHH that does not terminate its 
simulation can be the same program as the one that gives the answer, 
proving your utter stupidity.

> 
>> does
>> not report correctly. If HHH does abort it reports that DDD does not
>> halt, which is incorrect as in that case DDD does halt. HHH is correct
>> about DDD only if it does abort its simulation and reports "halts".
>> But you HHH does not do that.
>>
> 
>