Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sat, 4 May 2024 08:56:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v15eqb$17unh$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v1507m$1549l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 15:56:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d5b94937ab75d91202558453b5391e6";
	logging-data="1309425"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Rx7/lb77G+/09bIgCByJh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:otqnmToj0ZL2nGAzloIQz3CEAjk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1507m$1549l$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6042

On 5/4/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-03 11:55:15 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> The phrase "in other words" is not correct here as it means that
> what follows means the same as what precedes, and that is not
> true here.
> 
> For same loops the only wha to detect non-termination may be
> to simulate to infinity but they can be considered exluded by
> the term "simple" in (a).
> 
>> 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);
>> }
> 
> Per (b) that is non-halting and indeed it is (though the
> execution may crash for "out of memeory").
> 

It is not actually infinite though because H recognizes the non-halting
behavior pattern, aborts the simulation and reports non-halting.

It is the exact same thing with D simulated by H on the basis
of the directly executed H(D,D).

>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
> 
> Per (a) that is non-halting and indeed it is.

It is not actually infinite though because H recognizes the non-halting
behavior pattern, aborts the simulation and reports non-halting.

It is the exact same thing with D simulated by H on the basis
of the directly executed H(D,D).

> 
>> int factorial(int n)
>> {
>>    if (n >= 1)
>>      return n*factorial(n-1);
>>    else
>>      return 1;
>> }
> 
> Per (c) that is non-halting but in reality it is not.
> Ergo, the rule (c) is wrong.
> 

That was an example of an input that H correctly determines
does halt.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer