Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Fri, 3 May 2024 07:40:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 208
Message-ID: <v12m0r$hk7o$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v11fqe$2tlr1$6@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 14:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="42a0fc3cdc0841239d3b757772d0e924";
	logging-data="577784"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XTwfyxQSQwSp+cMlADc/i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ACiQEO9I7cK5PWjrpG5yd6t9gMg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v11fqe$2tlr1$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8870

On 5/2/2024 8:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Since you already agreed with Paul N you are contradicting yourself now.

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.

Message-ID: <1a63f362-31ad-4d75-b339-f91b2d95ea00n@googlegroups.com>

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