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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:22:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:22:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
	logging-data="1731642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CYYr0UqegWxJSBCc7y71R"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BHndoce35M84k6DLOI9s7/YiQhU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3876

On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant. 

This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

> It is relevant that 
> it *does* abort. That is relevant when determining whether it is correct.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Therefore, whether or not it must abort, is incorrect criteria. The fact 
> that it *does* abort (and aborts too early to see correctly the 
> behaviour) shows that the simulation is incorrect.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> It is not stuck in recursive simulation. We are speaking about an HHH 
> that *does* abort after two cycles. So, not stuck, the simulation is 
> only aborted too soon.
> Dreaming of another HHH that got stuck because it does not abort is 
> irrelevant, because this HHH *does* abort.
> 
>>
>> 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.
>>
> 
> It is dishonest to claim that two equals infinite.
> Two cycles of recursive simulation is not equal to an infinite recursion.
> You don't seem to understand such simple facts.
> 

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