Path: ...!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: Fri, 3 May 2024 07:25:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <v12l4b$hk7o$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v0qb59$2bsfc$1@dont-email.me> <v0r242$2hb7o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0r3kh$hka$1@news.muc.de> <v0r5f2$2hb7o$11@dont-email.me>
 <v0rsbv$2m1nf$8@i2pn2.org> <v0sgcm$2varu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v0vmvu$209h$3@news.muc.de> <v10md7$ese$1@dont-email.me>
 <v11fq0$2tlr1$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 14:25:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="42a0fc3cdc0841239d3b757772d0e924";
	logging-data="577784"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+3crYOWZ2uvg2pHJoDnnx0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ANF41sov84RuQnB5IDW4Wxs/M5w=
In-Reply-To: <v11fq0$2tlr1$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6691

On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/2/24 2:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/2/2024 4:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>>>> When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination 
>>>>>> analyzer} 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>>> That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an
>>>> aborted simulation ends up in.
>>>
>>> Only through your twisted reasoning.  For your information, I hold to 
>>> the
>>> standard definition of final state, i.e. one which has no state 
>>> following
>>> it.  An aborted simulation is in some state, and that state is a final
>>> one, since there is none following it.
>>>
>>>> On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
>>>>> isn't a final state.
>>>
>>>>> Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
>>>>> you get into that issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
>>>> Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.
>>>
>>> Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
>>> anything but clear.
>>>
>>
>> When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of three
>> non-halting behavior patterns
>> (a) Simple Infinite loop
>> (b) Simple Infinite Recursion
>> (c) Simple Recursive Simulation
> 
> Except that (c) is NOT a correct non-halting pattern if the "Simulator" 
> is a decider that may abort its simulation.
> 
> So, it isn't a "Non-Halting Pattern"
> 
> This was proven to you YEARS ago by showing a CORRECT simulation of D(D) 
> calling the H(D,D) that used that definition.
> 
> So, unless you come clean that these are NOT patterns about "Halting" 
> but something else, which needs a different name, you are just shown to 
> be a LIAR.
> 
>>
>> It aborts it simulation and reports that the input specifies
>> a non-halting sequence of configurations. Otherwise it continues
>> to simulate the input to completion. Non-terminating inputs that
>> have complex non-halting behaviors are outside of its domain.
> 
> Except that the input specifies a FINITE sequence of configurations, 
> since the H that is calls WILL abort its simimulation of the input it is 
> given and return 0.
> 
> YOUR logic is based on the LIE of CHANGING the H to be something else, 
> because you just don't understand the nature of computer programs.
> 
>>
>>
>>>> The whole field of *termination analysis* is directly related
>>>> to halting.
>>>
>>> Is there such a field of study?
>>>
>>
>> WST 2023: 19th International Workshop on Termination
>> https://easychair.org/cfp/WST2023
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>>
>> *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
> 
> Yes, there are a LOT of non-terminating programs that can be detectected.
> 
> The problem is that when you make H and D actual programs, if H(D,D) 
> returns 0, then D(D) is NOT a "non-terminating" program.
> 
> Now, part of the issue is that this form of Termination Analysis isn't 
> as concerned about being able to be 100% for every possible program, but 
> wants to look at what classes of programs CAN be very reliably decided on.
> 
> So yes, it is RELATED to halting, but has a different criteria for what 
> is considered a solution. In part, because they KNOW that 100% accuracy 
> on EVERY program is impossible, so they want to study what CAN be done.
> 
> In the field, rejecting "hostile" programs that are trying to be 
> intentionally hard to decide isn't considered a failure.
> 
> 

YOU TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS.
I ONLY GLANCED AT A FEW OF YOUR WORDS TO TELL THAT YOU
TRIED TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. ONCE I CAN TELL THAT YOU
ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT I QUIT READING.

(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.


>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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