Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!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: Fri, 3 May 2024 22:38:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v14740$c31$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <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> <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$1@dont-email.me> <v12b14$fbko$1@dont-email.me>
 <v12jb4$hc81$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 02:38:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="12385"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v12jb4$hc81$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5981
Lines: 130

On 5/3/24 7:55 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/3/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-02 18:35:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Simple recursive simulation is not a non-halting behaviour
>> if the recursion is not infinite.
>>
> 
> In other words the only way that we can tell that an infinite
> loop never halts is to simulate it until the end of time?
> 
> There are repeating state non-halting behavior patterns
> that can be recognized. These are three more functions
> where H derives the correct halt status:
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> int factorial(int n)
> {
>    if (n >= 1)
>      return n*factorial(n-1);
>    else
>      return 1;
> }
> 
> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
> 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 }
> 
> *Execution Trace*
> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that Simulates D(D) at Line 01
> 
> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
> Line 01
> Line 02
> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D)
> that simulates D(D) at Line 01
> 
> *Simulation invariant*
> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
> 
> I would think that a bright high school student would be
> able to tell that D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly
> reach past its own line 3. Four experts in C did say this.
> 
> It does not make sense to me that this is actually too
> difficult for people that come to this group.
> 

exceot I have described TWO DIFFERENT methods of design for Hs that make 
this claim false.

The fact that you continue to repeat it shows you are not actually 
interested in a honest discussion, but are just tryiing to hammer people 
into blindly accepting your false claims (like rump does).

Even an average middle schooler should be able to understand my 
arguments and see how you are wrong, so I guess you aren't smarter than 
a 6th grader.