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
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:53:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5d0ul$10m6p$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qrmd$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$1@dont-email.me> <v4shpp$cbcu$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4st0g$1hjnp$1@dont-email.me> <v4sull$2f03$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4svmn$1i267$1@dont-email.me> <v4u8cu$1o15$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4uoj9$1vpm0$10@dont-email.me> <v50ena$2ecrp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v50fcc$2efr5$1@dont-email.me> <v51gli$2kgr3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51hgt$2kigj$1@dont-email.me> <v5393g$3286d$3@dont-email.me>
 <v53ul0$35vak$5@dont-email.me> <v560kp$3lqrq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v56i4t$3or0r$2@dont-email.me> <v56jfu$onl3$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v56m2g$3or0r$8@dont-email.me> <v58ki1$8e51$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59726$bko6$2@dont-email.me> <v5b6rj$qq4o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btcg$v0vb$3@dont-email.me> <v5cip4$10816$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cngn$149dc$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:53:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5cngn$149dc$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3583
Lines: 40

On 6/24/24 5:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 2:52 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:46:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/24/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:13:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 6/23/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-06-22 14:11:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In particular, you can't. You have insisted that your "decider" or
>>>>>> "anlyzer" (or whatever word you happen to use) H or HH (or hwatever
>>>>>> name you happen to use) must return false because a non-input (where
>>>>>> instead of the actually called function another function that does
>>>>>> not halt is called) does not halt.
>>
>>>> Which is all we need to know about H in ordet to determine that it is
>>>> not a decider.
>>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot
>>> possibly return.
> 
>> Why not? H0 is a decider AND simulator, so it can simulate itself
>> terminating.
>>
> That is a stupid thing to say.
> When H0 is called in recursive emulation the semantics of the x86
> language do not allow H0 to simply ignore this and still terminate.
> 

THe semantic of the x86 language do not talk at ALL about "recursion" or 
"emulation" as no instruction in the set needs to directly deal with 
such things. Yes, you can build recursion emulation out of the 
instrucitons, but that is a DERIVED property, not an innate one.

You just don't seem to understand such FACTS, perhaps because you don't 
really understand the things you are trying to talk about.