Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 17:10:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <v11300$3au9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me>
 <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org> <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org> <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org> <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oban$1o3b$1@news.muc.de> <v0oce3$1q3aq$4@dont-email.me>
 <v0oe1b$1o3b$2@news.muc.de> <v0ofl3$1r1mf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oh7g$1o3b$3@news.muc.de> <v0olhv$1sgeo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0oobd$1o3b$4@news.muc.de> <v0or07$1tmga$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0vl3o$209h$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 00:10:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="42a0fc3cdc0841239d3b757772d0e924";
	logging-data="109513"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19V9CYf5AHXumKD0Drdc+J7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6ssJWWLinew+CdCxvsIVk9Ie35E=
In-Reply-To: <v0vl3o$209h$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4142

On 5/2/2024 4:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2024 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:23 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 9:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>>> A simulating termination analyzer is not the same thing as a UTM.
> 
>>> At the moment, on this newsgroup, it's a meaningless term.  You seem to
>>> have used it merely as a synonym for halting decider in the past.  Yet
>>> you fail to say what you mean by it, if you mean something different.
> 
>>>> Within my brand new idea of a {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>> there is the idea of abnormal termination.
> 
>>> It's unlikely to be a brand new idea, whatever it might be, since you
>>> aren't familiar with the literature and so most likely have come up with
>>> somebody else's old idea.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
>>> You've failed, repeatedly, to address the points I've been making in my
>>> last few posts, so it seems that you have accepted them.  In particular,
>>> you have accepted that "having been aborted" is indeed a final state for
>>> a turing machine or a program.
> 
>> All of the "points" that you have been making were entirely anchored in
>> your ignorance about what "simulating termination analyzer" are and how
>> they work.
> 
> I think it much more likely that there's no such thing as a "simulating
> termination analyzer".  I.e. there's no theory about it, no interesting
> results, no use for it, or anything like that.  I've asked you several
> times to define this object, other people have asked you too, yet you
> fail to do so.  Producing a few lines of scrappy C code is not anything
> like producing a definition.
> 
> "Simulating termination analyzer" probably just means halt decider.  We
> all know there's no such thing.
> 

*Symbolic execution as a basis for termination analysis*
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167642315000271

>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer