Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 21:48:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v11fq2$2tlr1$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v1123n$36h4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 01:48:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3069793"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1123n$36h4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5542
Lines: 102

On 5/2/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> *It has been a fully operational software system for a few years now*

No, as it gives the wrong answer to the problem that it was written to 
solve.

Since that that time, your claim WAS that you were working on the actual 
Halting Problem, but claimed that H(D,D) could be correct saying its 
input represents a non-halting pattern, even though, by DEFINITION, 
since D(D) halt it is an incorret answer.

You gave all sorts of LIES about why a wrong answer could be right.

Now, you just obfuscate what you are actually doing by changing some of 
the terms, without actually defining them, but still making you proven 
incorrect claims.

> 
> Universal Turing Machine (UTM) having the x86 language as its Machine 
> description language. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm


And thus you are STILL indicting that this is about the actual Halting 
Problem and claims that these are "Turing Equivalents" (except they 
aren't) so your claims are still proven to be lies.

The biggest part is the code you say is the description of the machine 
D, isn't, as just that piece of code isn't a "program" but a "program 
fragment" and thus everything after that is just a lie.

> 
>> "Simulating termination analyzer" probably just means halt decider.  We
>> all know there's no such thing.
>>
> 
> *This is probably the best simulating termination analyzer available*
> 
> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs*
> To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE
> uses the Clang compiler [7] to translate it to the
> intermediate representation of the LLVM framework [15].
> Then AProVE symbolically executes the LLVM program ...
> https://verify.rwth-aachen.de/giesl/papers/TACAS22.pdf

Right, and look at what they actually claim.

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