Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 03:37:00 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <v1c0js$2skfm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$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>
 <v15eqb$17unh$4@dont-email.me> <v17f4p$1ojbj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v185lo$1t4hn$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 03:37:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="646fa71d26d45e9a0e5082cc18b78cf6";
	logging-data="3035638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19r1Dkg5cXlBumo6qJzvCBK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ttVGLKWc9CL3/3x0rrEXk5hjuZQ=
In-Reply-To: <v185lo$1t4hn$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6546

On 5/05/24 16:38, olcott wrote:
> 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?

I'm back!

Yes, we understand that. Do you understand that since all simulating 
termination analyzers must simulate their non-terminating input forever, 
simulating termination analyzers do not always terminate?

Facts don't care if you think they're stupid. I think entropy is stupid. 
Tough shit.

> No it is not. A simulating termination analyzer must get at least one
> non-terminating input correctly and one terminating input correctly.
> You couldn't even tell that ordinary factorial halts?

According to this definition, simulating termination analyzers do not exist.

I can prove that circles have 90-degree corners:

1. Consider a square circle.
2. It has 90-degree corners because it's a square.