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 21:49:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v11fqe$2tlr1$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me>
 <v0r78v$hka$3@news.muc.de> <v0rd16$2k1bi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0t3uj$1iuj$2@news.muc.de> <v0tneg$37lgj$5@dont-email.me>
 <v0vmdt$209h$2@news.muc.de> <v10kkm$7k7$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 01:49:02 -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: <v10kkm$7k7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7914
Lines: 187

On 5/2/24 2:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 4:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/1/2024 5:01 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
>>>>>>>> final state.
>>
>>>>>> Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
>>>>>> failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
>>>>>> can't.
>>
>>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>>>> ....
>>
>>>>>> It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
>>>>>> most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
>>>>>> define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.
>>
>>>>>>> .... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
>>>>>>> define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
>>>>>>> halting.
>>
>>>>>> Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
>>>>>> or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.
>>
>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function
>>
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>
>>>> Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
>>>> mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.
>>
>>> Experts in the C language could directly confirm that no D simulated
>>> by H can possible reach past its own line 3.
>>
>> I am an expert in the C language, and it is abundantly clear that the
>> above assertion is meaningless without a clear specification for H.
>> Quite obviously, if H(x, x); on L3 returns zero, the program will proceed
>> to L6 and terminate.
>>
> 
> It turns out that {D is simulated by H} is a sufficiently complete
> specification.

Nope, in fact your "term" here is not properly defined, and is based on 
contradictory definitions.


> 
>>> Everyone here has perpetually pretended that they did not understand
>>> this so I had to get an outsider to confirm this:
>>
>> It's not a matter of "understanding".  It's you that lacks understanding,
>> not everybody else.
>>
> 
> If that was true then four people would not have been able
> to correctly answer the question.

Fallacy.


> 
>>> On 6/14/2022 6:47 AM, Paul N wrote:
>>>> Yes, it is clear to us humans watching it that the program is
>>>> repeating itself. Thus we can appreciate that it will never reach the
>>>> final "ret" - indeed, it won't even get to the infinite loop
>>>> identified above.
>>
>> Thanks for the citation.  But it's unclear precisely what Paul N was
>> agreeing to. 
> 
> *It was clear enough for Richard to agree yesterday*
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n%40googlegroups.com%3E
> 
>> You're not known for expressing your ideas clearly and
>> permanently - the symbols and terms you use are usually vaguely defined
>> at best, and change their precise meaning over time, and from post to
>> post.
>>
> 
> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
> 01 int D(ptr x)
> 02 {
> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> 04   if (Halt_Status)
> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
> 06   return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 void main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
> 
> 
>>>>> (a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
>>>>> possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
>>>>> aborts its simulation or not.
>>
>>>> That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and
>>>> when,
>>
>>> Two experts in the C programming language and two people with masters
>>> degrees in computer science.
>>
>> Their names, please.  And the dates and places of their "verifications",
>> too.
>>
> 
> No. What I said is self-evidently true. If you are an expert
> at C and don't see that it is self-evidently true you are
> either playing head games or exaggerating your C skill.
> *Try and find a counter-example* That none exists proves
> that I am correct.
> 
>>> Basically everyone that knows C very well and tell the truth.
>>
>> I know C exceptionally well, and always tell the truth on Usenet.  It's
>> clear to me your (a) is at best problematic.  Richard has pointed out
>> some of these problems, and you have failed to address them.
> 
> Richard pointed out the when *D is not simulated by H*
> then (a) is not met yet (a) requires that *D is simulated by H*
> So Richard was not paying any attention at all.

Nope,


> 
>>  Again, it's
>> unclear what these experts (if they exist) were saying, what they were
>> saying it about, and whether they were answering sincerely, or just
>> getting a crank off their backs with as little effort as possible.
>>
>>> If you lack sufficient technical expertise to understand this
>>> easily verified fact then you are unqualified to evaluate my work.
>>
>> There you go again.  Your (a) is not a fact, much less verified.
> 
> When Richard tried to find a counter-example his
> "counter-example" merely proved that he was not paying
> any attention at all. Try and provide your own
> counter-example.
> 
>>  My
>> understanding of it is not in question.  It is you who appear to lack
>> sufficient understanding to work in this area of mathematics.
>>
> 
> We are not yet beginning to talk about mathematics.
> We are only talking about the behavior of an infinite
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========