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: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:36:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4qe53$a0nm$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me> <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me> <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:36:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="379895"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8744
Lines: 213

On 6/17/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/17/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/17/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/17/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/17/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/17/24 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2024 om 05:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless every single detail is made 100% explicit false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> always slip though the cracks. This is why it must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examined at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C level before it is examined at the Turing Machine level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    H0(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that when H0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as non-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For Infinite_Loop and Infinite_Recursion that might be true, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> because there the simulator processes the whole input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The H0 case is very different. For H0 there is indeed a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> false assumption, as you mentioned. Here H0 needs to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself, but the simulation is never able to reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the final state of the simulated self. The abort is always 
>>>>>>>>>>>> one cycle too early, so that the simulating H0 misses the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> abort. Therefore this results in a false negative.
>>>>>>>>>>>> (Note that H0 should process its input, which includes the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> H0 that aborts, not a non-input with an H that does not abort.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This results in a impossible dilemma for the programmer. It 
>>>>>>>>>>>> he creates a H that does not abort, it will not terminate. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Therefore what I said is correct*
>>>>>>>>>>> When every input that must be aborted is construed as 
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> then the input to H0(DDD) is correctly construed as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you allow yourself to LIE, you can claim 
>>>>>>>>>> the wrong answer is right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since your "Needing to abort" is NOT the same as halting, all 
>>>>>>>>>> you are doing is admitting that your whole logic system is 
>>>>>>>>>> based on the principle that LIES ARE OK.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Needing to abort" <is> the same as a NOT halting input.
>>>>>>>>> You are simply too ignorant to understand this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, not if you are comparing DIFFERENT version of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is ALWAYS the exact same sequence of bytes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if it doesn't include the bytes of H, 
>>>>>
>>>>> It is like we know that N > 50 and you can't
>>>>> see that this also means N > 40.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> How do you simulate something you do not have?
>>>>
>>>> That is like says when the requirement is for N > 50 that you claim 
>>>> 1 is ok, because 50 can be 5*0 just like xy is x*y.
>>>>
>>>> Again, how can you claim a "Correct Simulation" by the exact 
>>>> definition of the x86 instruction set, when you omit the call H 
>>>> instruction, and then "jump" to an addres that was never jumped to 
>>>> at any point later in the program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You just aren't bright enough to see simple truths that
>>> every programmer can see.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt.
>>> That this truth is so simple lead me to believe that
>>> you were lying about it instead of ordinary cluelessness.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the question isn't DDD correctly simulated by H0, but does DDD 
>> itself, when run halt.
>>
> 
> The proof that you are wrong is over your head.

That is just a lying Dodge.

An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by 
claiming the other couldn't understand it.

The problem, as you have demonstrated, is that youj actually don't even 
know the BASICS of the field, so clearly can't have grasps of things 
above all others.



> 
>> You have been stuck on the wrong question for ages, because you just 
>> belive your own lies, and think you are allowed to change the 
>> definitions of terms.
>>
> No that is not it. I have known the truth for two
> decades and am just now expressing it in words.

Nope, you have lied to yourself about it for two decades, but can't 
actually show it other, because it isn't true.

If you had a fundamental flaw that actually broke the system, you could 
just show it.

> 
> If the halting problem is correct then truth itself
> is broken. Since truth itself cannot be broken then
> the halting problem cannot be correct.

No, truth as YOU think of it is broken, because your idea of Truth is 
just wrong.

It isn't that everyone else is wrong, it is YOU are wrong, but are too 
bulheaded to accept it.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========