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 21:49:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v11fqi$2tlr1$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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 01:49:07 -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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10095
Lines: 238

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.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
>>> 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.

Since  I presented two counter examples, which you have not even 
attempted to find a problem with, you are just admitting that you are 
nothing but a LIAR.

To deny the existanc oe something that has been shown is just like (if 
not worse than) the election deniers saying the there was massive fraud 
that changed the election.

Actually, a lot worse, They at least can use the priciple that lack of 
evidence is not evidence of lack (there could be evidence that we just 
don't see), but in your case, there IS evidence that you just refuse to 
look at and process.

Proving you are just a pathological liar that can't handle the truth.

> 
>>> 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, I guess you don't understand that 0 is a number, so simulating for 
0 steps CAN be consisdered a simulation by basic logic.

After all, you consider not simulating the Call H instruction to be a 
correct simulation.

>>  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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========