Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 20:42:47 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@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 20:42:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53ee6a76ae1277aa2fa0ccc5a0217e91";
	logging-data="1849737"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PWbJ1SYOmw8r8Wdv9mZOe"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1gU81pZeeIaF51W/wV9jFRAR+I4=
In-Reply-To: <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4187

Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
> 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>

Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be irrelevant 
does not bring the discussion any further.
Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your 
simulation is not correct.

> 
>> 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.
>>
>