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 by dummies --- What does halting
 mean?
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 21:51:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <v4th4c$1oosn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$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>
 <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me> <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me> <v4tf26$ddeo$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4tfsj$1oosn$1@dont-email.me> <v4tgg7$ddeo$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 04:51:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c0498080d6b8a2710b4ab7de903a0762";
	logging-data="1860503"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18faIW91hoFGPZG5SyO2qGj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:d0PH5SdyVRdT3nvLTBgHGWMVo+g=
In-Reply-To: <v4tgg7$ddeo$8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6147

On 6/18/2024 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/18/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/18/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/18/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt.
>>>>
>>>>> DDD halts iff H0 halts.
>>>>
>>>> Halting is a technical term-of-the-art that corresponds
>>>> to terminates normally. Because Turing machines are
>>>> abstract mathematical objects there has been no notion
>>>> of abnormal termination for a Turing machine.
>>>
>>> No "normally" as Turing Machine have no "abnormal terminatiom"
>>>
>>> You just don't understand what they are.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can derive a notion of abnormal termination for Turing
>>>> machines from the standard terms-of-the-art.
>>>
>>> How?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some TM's loop and thus never stop running, this is classical
>>>> non-halting behavior. UTM's simulate Turing machine descriptions.
>>>> This is the same thing as an interpreter interpreting the
>>>> source-code of a program.
>>>>
>>>> A UTM can be adapted so that it only simulates a fixed number
>>>> of iterations of an input that loops. When this UTM stops
>>>> simulating this Turing machine description we cannot correctly
>>>> say that this looping input halted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And then are no longer UTMs, and YES, if a machine based on such am 
>>> modifed UTM (so it is no long a UTM) when the UTM stops simulating, 
>>> we can not say the input halted, nor can we say it didn't halt.
>>>
>>
>> When such a UTM has been adapted to only simulate
>> the first ten states of its input TMD, then every
>> simulated TMD with more than ten states did not
>> terminate normally.
> 
> Then it is no longer a UTM.
> 
> And its simulation say NOTHING about the machine not terminating, 
> normally nor not.
> 
> Terminating is a property of the actual machine, and not a sumulation of 
> it.
> 

Thus according to your faulty reasoning when the source-code
of a C program is simulated by interpreter this is mere nonsense
gibberish having nothing to do what the behavior that this
source-code specifies.

> You could say the SIMULATION didn't terminate normally, but you can't 
> say the machine didn't or even the Turing Machine Description, as you 
> could give that exact same TMD to a real UTM and find out the actual 
> behaviof or the input.
> 

Sure you can otherwise interpreters of source-code would be
a bogus concept.

> You just have lost track of the defintions of what is REALITY (the 
> actual behavior of the machine) and what is just imagination.
> 
Not I but you.

>>
>>> The not-a-UTM just came to a no-answer state.
>>>
>>
>> I have to go one-step-at-a-time with everyone or
>> they get overwhelmed and leap to the conclusion
>> that I am wrong.
> 
> Nope, you just forget about what is defined to be real.
> 
>>
>>> The answer will be provided by useing an ACTUAL UTM that keeps on 
>>> going, or the direct execution of the machine,
>>>
>>> You are just stuck in your idea that Lies are sometimes ok.
>>
>> You are stuck on the idea that repeating states cannot
>> be recognized in a finite number of steps.
> 
> No, ACTUAL REPEATING states can be recognised, but I guess you are too 
> stupid to understand my description of it.
> 
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>> {
>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>> }
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    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.
> 
> Which doesn't mean the program DDD needs to be abort to have it halt.
> 

The verified that that it does need to be aborted contradicts
your nonsense to the contrary.

> That is just a figment of your imagination that doesn't understand the 
> difference between truth and lies.
> 
>>
>> This was recently confirmed in the C group.
>>
> 
> Yes, by Bonita, whose confirmation is, if anything a mark against the 
> statement.

Are you sure that you are not a liar?
I have had numerous experts in C confirm this.
Bonita confirmed this: "Everything correct"

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