Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!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 22:42:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v147be$c31$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v0vl3o$209h$1@news.muc.de> <v1123n$36h4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v11fq2$2tlr1$4@i2pn2.org> <v12l6m$hk7o$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 02:42:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="12385"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v12l6m$hk7o$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6525
Lines: 127

On 5/3/24 8:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/2/2024 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/2/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2024 4:07 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/29/2024 1:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 11:17 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 10:23 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/29/2024 9:37 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 1:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer is not the same thing as a UTM.
>>>>
>>>>>> At the moment, on this newsgroup, it's a meaningless term.  You 
>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>> have used it merely as a synonym for halting decider in the past.  
>>>>>> Yet
>>>>>> you fail to say what you mean by it, if you mean something different.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Within my brand new idea of a {simulating termination analyzer}
>>>>>>> there is the idea of abnormal termination.
>>>>
>>>>>> It's unlikely to be a brand new idea, whatever it might be, since you
>>>>>> aren't familiar with the literature and so most likely have come 
>>>>>> up with
>>>>>> somebody else's old idea.
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>>> You've failed, repeatedly, to address the points I've been making 
>>>>>> in my
>>>>>> last few posts, so it seems that you have accepted them.  In 
>>>>>> particular,
>>>>>> you have accepted that "having been aborted" is indeed a final 
>>>>>> state for
>>>>>> a turing machine or a program.
>>>>
>>>>> All of the "points" that you have been making were entirely 
>>>>> anchored in
>>>>> your ignorance about what "simulating termination analyzer" are and 
>>>>> how
>>>>> they work.
>>>>
>>>> I think it much more likely that there's no such thing as a "simulating
>>>> termination analyzer".  I.e. there's no theory about it, no interesting
>>>> results, no use for it, or anything like that.  I've asked you several
>>>> times to define this object, other people have asked you too, yet you
>>>> fail to do so.  Producing a few lines of scrappy C code is not anything
>>>> like producing a definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *It has been a fully operational software system for a few years now*
>>
>> No, as it gives the wrong answer to the problem that it was written to 
>> solve.
>>
>> Since that that time, your claim WAS that you were working on the 
>> actual Halting Problem, but claimed that H(D,D) could be correct 
>> saying its input represents a non-halting pattern, even though, by 
>> DEFINITION, since D(D) halt it is an incorret answer.
>>
>> You gave all sorts of LIES about why a wrong answer could be right.
>>
>> Now, you just obfuscate what you are actually doing by changing some 
>> of the terms, without actually defining them, but still making you 
>> proven incorrect claims.
>>
>>>
>>> Universal Turing Machine (UTM) having the x86 language as its Machine 
>>> description language. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>
>>
>> And thus you are STILL indicting that this is about the actual Halting 
>> Problem and claims that these are "Turing Equivalents" (except they 
>> aren't) so your claims are still proven to be lies.
>>
>> The biggest part is the code you say is the description of the machine 
>> D, isn't, as just that piece of code isn't a "program" but a "program 
>> fragment" and thus everything after that is just a lie.
>>
> 
> 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.

Proven wrong and not refuted, so you accepted it as a disproven 
statement, and thus a LIE to restate.


> 
>>>
>>>> "Simulating termination analyzer" probably just means halt decider.  We
>>>> all know there's no such thing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This is probably the best simulating termination analyzer available*
>>>
>>> *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
>>
>> Right, and look at what they actually claim.
>>
>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; 
>>>>> Genius
>>>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>>>
>>>
>>
>