Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:15:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v737dh$mjis$11@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me> <v6nts5$2be3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6op4h$2fuva$4@dont-email.me> <v6qo1d$2ugov$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6rajl$30qtt$7@dont-email.me> <v6tc75$3gidj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tri1$3imib$9@dont-email.me> <v702t1$2lgb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70mel$61d8$2@dont-email.me> <v72jqi$juvg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:15:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637";
	logging-data="740956"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VQZZ69narUb7foKwiQsOs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w+vAQzq8IhccM5+tWrpPLUtsQVA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v72jqi$juvg$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3384

On 7/15/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-14 14:13:41 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/14/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-13 12:22:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> Deciders are required to (thus must) halt.
>>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 language does not require that, nor that any of
>>> the programs is a decider.
>>
>> The subject our our conversion is a simulating termination
>> analyzer
> 
> No, it is not. As stated on the Subject line, the subject is correctness of
> the rejection of DDD as non-halting.
> 
>> AKA partial halt decider
> 
> That "AKA" is incorrect. The term "termination analyzer" means a program
> of a certain kind and the term "partial halt decider" means a program of
> a different kind.
> 

Not for the subset of inputs that we are examining.

>> that accepts a finite string of x86 code as specifying halting behavior
>> or rejects this finite string. Deciders are required to halt thus must
>> abort the emulation of any input that would prevent this.
> 
> However, that is not sufficient. The decider must not accpet inputs that
> its specification does not specify as acceptable and must not reject inputs
> that its specification does not specify as rejectable. As you call your
> program a "partial halt decider" you should also specify how it is partial,
> i.e., what inputs it is required to answer the same whay as a halt decider
> and what it may do with the other inputs.
> 

Partial halt decider / termination analyzer HHH has these
inputs in its domain.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

This is only hard when you are trying to be as disagreeable
as possible.

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