Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 11:36:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me> <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me> <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me> <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4f3ec$2akmh$2@dont-email.me> <v4g65a$3tn6q$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4g6vr$2ic0g$1@dont-email.me> <v4gc0b$3tn6r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gcjc$2msea$1@dont-email.me> <v4geab$3tn6r$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4gg0s$2nim8$2@dont-email.me> <v4ha63$3v16r$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hfq9$2sdqr$5@dont-email.me> <v4hp3r$3viml$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4hv85$3021v$1@dont-email.me> <v4ju8f$222a$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4k1m4$3f99u$1@dont-email.me> <v4k4mt$3fnqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4maeo$3vv3f$1@dont-email.me> <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me> <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me> <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 18:36:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="817dd47f58e869d78494e0bf13c00909";
	logging-data="1518671"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kNTSWct94LSR6Iri2Vq7G"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Hyan9yVPsbnXdeayCkY6m+uE00=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7418

On 6/18/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) has no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H1 is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should give the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> term partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though 
>>>>>>>>>>> whether he knows
>>>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE uses the 
>>>>>>>>>> Clang compiler [7] to translate it to the intermediate 
>>>>>>>>>> representation of the LLVM framework [15]. Then AProVE 
>>>>>>>>>> symbolically executes the LLVM program and uses abstraction to 
>>>>>>>>>> obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) containing all 
>>>>>>>>>> possible program runs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> AProVE is a particular attempt, not a defintion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that
>>>>>>>> *is* what a duck is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, 
>>>>>>> it does
>>>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Termination analysis*
>>>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which
>>>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program 
>>>>>>>> halts
>>>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program
>>>>>>>> computes a total function.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating
>>>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that 
>>>>>>> the input
>>>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the
>>>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs*
>>>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really. It does not simulate.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE uses the Clang
>>>> compiler [7] to translate it to the intermediate representation of the
>>>> LLVM framework [15].Then AProVE *symbolically executes the LLVM 
>>>> program*
>>>
>>> I.e., does not simulate.
>>>
>>
>> So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program*
>> means jumping up and down yelling and screaming?
> 
> Not a bad guess but not quite right either.
> 
>> AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the
>> dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis.
> 
> It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that
> in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers
> all possible inputs at the same time.
> 

None-the-less it does derive the directly graph of all
control flows on the basis of
*symbolically executes the LLVM program*

>> *symbolically executes the LLVM program* means dynamic behavior
>> and not static analysis.
> 
> It does not reproduce any specific example of the dynamic behaviour.
> 

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