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: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 21:55:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v52mig$jund$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4os9e$i70m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4p9mb$lavj$1@dont-email.me> <v4pdph$l7lf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4pepj$ln46$15@dont-email.me> <v4pgk3$l7le$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4phhl$mub6$2@dont-email.me> <v4piea$l7le$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4pmb8$nmvq$1@dont-email.me> <v4rekj$180pg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rv45$1blnm$1@dont-email.me> <v4s8k7$1dcrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4s9cj$1dk9i$1@dont-email.me> <v4sa6j$1dcrb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v4scfo$1eb2f$1@dont-email.me> <v4u3mr$1rrod$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4ukq9$1vpm0$2@dont-email.me> <v4vsqt$ggem$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4vu1e$27o1c$1@dont-email.me> <v5019d$ggem$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v502jc$2ccjk$1@dont-email.me> <v503fg$ggen$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v503ur$2ccjk$2@dont-email.me> <v52bjh$jdea$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v52br1$2phm9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 01:55:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="654061"; 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: <v52br1$2phm9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5042
Lines: 78

On 6/20/24 6:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2024 5:48 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:25:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/19/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/19/24 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/19/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/19/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/19/24 9:00 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2024 3:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2024 om 18:26 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2024 om 17:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is easier to understand because a print statement was added.
>>>>>>>>>> You proved that it halts, but H0 reports non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>> So, it produces a false negative.
>>>>>>>>>> So, now it has been proved that H, H0, etc produce false
>>>>>>>>>> negatives, when used to determine halting behaviour, please, stop
>>>>>>>>>> to call them halt-deciders, or termination-deciders.
>>>>>>>>>> They might be "simulation deciders". When returning true, the
>>>>>>>>>> simulation was correct, when false, the full simulation was not
>>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>
>>>>>>>> Why does H0 NEED to be able to simulate its input?
>> Yeah, why? That just adds a contradictory requirement. Not that it were
>> possible otherwise.
>>
>>>>>>> Decider must compute the mapping from their finite string input to
>>>>>>> the actual behavior that this finite string specifies.
>> If possible.
>>>>>>> They are not free to imagine the behavior that the authors of
>>>>>>> textbooks expect.
>> Nor crackpots.
>>
>>>>> The finite string input does not communicate the behavior that the
>>>>> textbook authors expect it to communicate.
>> Bullshit. Your neither-decider-nor-simulator just can't handle it.
>> The direct execution of DDD is the measure of things. A simulation
>> must behave identically. Of course you may be able to do analysis
>> on whether it halts, but that's different. Simulation is dumb.
>>
>>>> The finite string certainly DOES communicate what is needed to
>>>> determine the behavior, or it wasn't a correct representation.
>> Deflection follows:
>>> There is no sequence of truth preserving operations from the finite
>>> string machine code of DDD that can correctly ignore the pathological
>>> relationship between H0 and DDD as an aspect of the behavior that this
>>> finite string specifies.
>> Many other simulators or deciders work correctly with DDD, just not the
>> one it calls. But they each get a different one wrong.
>> What do you mean with "ignore the relationship"?
>>
>>> No one has noticed this before because no one ever thought to make every
>>> single detail 100% concrete, thus leaving huge gaps in all prior
>>> reasoning.
>> We have a proof.
>>
> 
> You have dogmatic false assumptions.
> It is an verified fact that the input to H(D,D) cannot
> be mapped to the behavior of D(D).


????

But the Halting Function does that map.

> 
> When I say "mapped" I don't mean look something
> up in Google maps.
> 

No, and you don't mean a defined mapping of the input to the output, you 
LIE by trying to mean only COMPUTABLE mappings, which is just a LIE.


I guess you are just admitting that you are just a totally ignorant liar.