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: Sun, 5 May 2024 12:43:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <v18gg2$1vhpv$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@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>
 <v15eqb$17unh$4@dont-email.me> <v17f4p$1ojbj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v185lo$1t4hn$5@dont-email.me>
 <pan$3a773$3f336d55$1d23114a$8b7cc149@example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 19:43:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="2082623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DJ8wylzwKNm4goum5PIti"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TVgbJyTQeSdfWKLKYSw/RvnF90Q=
In-Reply-To: <pan$3a773$3f336d55$1d23114a$8b7cc149@example.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7376

On 5/5/2024 12:07 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 05 May 2024 09:38:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 
>> On 5/5/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-04 13:56:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The recursion is infinite. The simulation by H is incomplete and
>>> finite.
>>>
>> Do you understand that it is ridiculously stupid for a simulating
>> termination analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever?
> That’s the point. Either it simulates until a possibly nonexistent
> termination, or it aborts and is thus not a simulator.
> 

So in other words you choose to simply "not believe in"
a simulating termination analyzer without being able to
show that it does not work correctly.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The loop is infinite. The simulation by H is incomplete and finite.
>>>
>> Do you understand that it is ridiculously stupid for a simulating
>> termination analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever?
> 
> If H aborts, THE SAME H that D calls also does, thus D terminates, so
> H was wrong in aborting. That’s exactly the proof.
> 

My new post is more clear on these things
[Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H]

*This new post proves this conclusion*
 From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set of
H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls
that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H.


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