Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 08:21:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 291
Message-ID: <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$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$1@dont-email.me> <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 15:21:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="817dd47f58e869d78494e0bf13c00909";
	logging-data="1434078"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182E0paSALDShIzzNCp4VPA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:30pXWaQKW+u9++xJieNdYFkI5F0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11761

On 6/18/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> I have always only wanted what the actual truth really is.
Your systematic error of bias has prevented you from paying
enough attention to see this true, or maybe you simply are
not bright enough, or some of both.

> An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by 
> claiming the other couldn't understand it.
> 
I calls em as I see em.

> 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.
> 

It is not at all that I don't know these things.
It is that I professor Hehner and professor Stoddart
pay enough attention to see that there is something
wrong with the halting problem. Professor Hehner said
that I could quote him as agreeing to those exact same
words as they apply to himself.

> 
> 
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========