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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 21:51:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vmen$1oanb$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 01:51:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845995"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3140
Lines: 74

On 7/1/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
> so that itself can terminate normally.

Right.

> 
> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
> termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject these inputs as
> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.

But only when you can actually PROVE that the full emulation of the 
program would be non-halting.

> 
> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
> that their finite string input specifies thus HHH must report
> that DDD correctly emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive
> simulation.

But if DDD WAS stuck in infinte recursion, so must be HHH, so it isn't a 
decider.

HHH can't have different behavior when emulated by HHH then when it is 
actually run.

The problem is that "Emulated by the Decider" is NOT a valid criteria 
for the behavior of the input, since it isn't a function of just the input.

The "Behavior of the input" will be the behavior of the program the 
input represents when it is run. The fact that the decider can't figure 
it out, isn't a problem, it just shows that this question on behavior 
isn't computable, which is perfectly fine.


> 
> Everyone else seems to be flat out dishonest or totally ignorant.
> At least one of my reviewers does not seem to understand that
> infinite recursion does not halt.
> 

Nope, just one person, YOU. Your claims are FULL OF LIES and 
inconsistant definitions, and you re just to ignorant and stupid to 
understand that.

You don't understand the fundamental definitions of the field, because 
it seems, you intentionaally refuse to study it. That doesn't make your 
ERRORS innocent mistakes, but just a calculate fabrication.