Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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? ---Truth Maker
 Maximalism FULL_TRACE
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:57:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f5a2ebe0935b2c891a06650e89c28fbcc0560f61@i2pn2.org>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <66c00d5703907e846f537310dfb201485e1b7b2a@i2pn2.org>
 <10492eb$u8g5$1@dont-email.me> <104b5l9$fnl$1@news.muc.de>
 <104ben3$1hqln$1@dont-email.me> <104bt5h$1l1g$1@news.muc.de>
 <104bunk$1kcb5$1@dont-email.me> <104did7$hlh$1@news.muc.de>
 <104e164$2852a$1@dont-email.me> <104e6nd$12ua$1@news.muc.de>
 <104e93k$29rpg$1@dont-email.me> <104ed4k$223c$1@news.muc.de>
 <104ehua$2c91h$1@dont-email.me> <104epfu$nqi$1@news.muc.de>
 <104fdma$2n8gq$1@dont-email.me> <104gkad$2f8e$1@news.muc.de>
 <10515pj$2v547$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1fa8b9a19b4a102d7f5c2d58cf4b9b127c30955@i2pn2.org>
 <1051r18$36s16$3@dont-email.me>
 <a6849743e4a6af25dc93b3b269e1d39002488efe@i2pn2.org>
 <105394s$3ev5b$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 02:57:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="672636"; 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: <105394s$3ev5b$15@dont-email.me>

On 7/14/25 11:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/14/2025 6:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/13/25 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/13/2025 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/2025 9:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 4:23 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:52 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 11:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then you should know that DD simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An argument like this is at such a low level of abstraction as 
>>>>>>>>>> to be near
>>>>>>>>>> valuless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is really weird that you are calling a 100% complete
>>>>>>>>> concrete specification "a low level of abstraction".
>>>>>>>>> That HHH(DD) correctly determines that DD simulated by
>>>>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly halt is a proven fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A complete concrete specification would necessarily include a 
>>>>>>>> description
>>>>>>>> of what you mean by "simulation".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I specifically mean that this x86 machine code
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>> Is emulated by an x86 emulator named HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's no adequate description.  To make it so, you'd have to say 
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> you mean by an "x86 emulator".  The name you give it is irrelevant
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   But my point was that rather than
>>>>>>>> sticking to the abstract nature of the proof, you're chipping 
>>>>>>>> tiny pieces
>>>>>>>> out of it and dealing with those.  The proof you claim to refute 
>>>>>>>> has no
>>>>>>>> notion of simulation, for example; it doesn't need it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Not at all there are two pieces*
>>>>>>> (1) HHH(DD) does correctly determine that its input
>>>>>>>      specifies non halting behavior.
>>>>>>> (2) The directly executed DD() does not contradict this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The word "correctly" is fully redundant there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The proof does not state whether the constructed function returns 
>>>>>> true or
>>>>>> false, i.e. whether it specifies non halting behaviour. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The proof is purported to prove THAT DD is an undecidable
>>>>> input for HHH. This is its counter example refuting the
>>>>> claim that a universal halt decider can exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But since your DD by your own admission is a category error for a 
>>>> halt decider, as you have specifically stated it isn't a program as 
>>>> the input doesn't include the code of the specific HHH that it 
>>>> calls, you proof is just invalid.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, all you proved is that you don't know what you are talking 
>>>> about.
>>>
>>> That you keep trying to get away with refuting
>>> this easily verified fact says a about about you
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> When one or more instructions of DDD are emulated
>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language by
>>> some HHH, no DDD ever reaches its "ret" instruction.
>>>
>>
>> Which isn't the definition of Non-Halting, 
> Reaching a final halt state <is> the definition of halting.
> 

Right, but the OBJECT that measures that it the exectution of the 
Program, or a complete simulation.

Note, Non-Halting isn't everything that isn't halting, it is those 
things that Halting is defined for not reaching that state, even after 
an unbounded number of steps processed.

That is where you lies fail. You think not reaching the final state 
because you gave up means non-halting.

This is like saying the 10 mile trail is non-ending, because you gave up 
hiking it after 100 feet, and said "I can't get to the end, so it must 
be non-ending".

Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a stupid pathological liar 
that does't know the meaning of the words he uses, but makes up lies for 
definitions.