Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Termination analyzer defined ---OLCOTT IS A LIAR !!!
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 22:16:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v215tf$12b7d$12@i2pn2.org>
References: <v1me7i$1l6ut$1@dont-email.me> <v1nec4$1vb8i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1o6p5$24f4c$2@dont-email.me> <v1pvj0$2knal$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qi01$2on4q$2@dont-email.me> <v1qn4o$2pts6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1qt92$2rdui$1@dont-email.me> <v1sl6o$3cg5n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1tktb$3jv6d$1@dont-email.me> <v1vb6j$3ccc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vrs0$7577$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 02:16:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1125613"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1vrs0$7577$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3443
Lines: 55

On 5/14/24 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-13 18:07:37 +0000, Jeff Barnett said:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyway, if an analyzer can never tell whether a program terminates
>>>> with every possible input then it is not a termination analyzer.
>>>
>>> I don't think the above is true in the way you meant it. Recall that 
>>> the collection of all Turing machines with blank input tapes is the 
>>> same set of computations as the collection with arbitrary input 
>>> tapes. It's always possible to take any specific machine, T, and 
>>> initial tape, I, and produce machine T' with blank initial input tape 
>>> that is equivalent: T' initially writes I on its tape (say one 
>>> character output per state in sequence) then continues with the set 
>>> of states that comprises T.
>>>
>>> So it is obvious that a termination analyzer (AKA a halt decider) 
>>> restricted to blank tape problems will do quite nicely and it is also 
>>> quite obvious that no such entity exists.
>>
>> You only discuss halting decisions with specific inputs. THerefore you 
>> say
>> nothing about termination analyzers and don't show any mistake in my 
>> comment.
>>
> 
> 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 int main()
> 10 {
> 11   H(D,D);
> 12 }
> 
> In any case you diverged away form the whole point of this thread.
> Richard is wrong when he says that there exists an H/D pair such
> that D simulated by H ever reaches past its own line 03.
> 

No, the fact that I published the proof, and you haven't even tried to 
refute it shows that you have no basis for your claim and you are 
nothing but a liar.

I note that you are not sure enough of your claim to take me up on the 
take it or leave it challenge, or even commit to never again claiming no 
one has refuted your statements, so obviously you have your doubts, but 
still state something you are not sure of as a truth, which just makes 
you an admitted liar.