Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v7h10g$3li66$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:52:00 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: <v7h10g$3li66$2@dont-email.me> References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <bd3d4fcbef5ae30e9d2e81d3fd8de055f38f30ca@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 20:52:01 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c302f5257903c7c25aa8d1f6976e7879"; logging-data="3852486"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tDhGeGr6Y7/ohr3LZLqg9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wWOcN7Y/40b7qV6yaWZpjaJCAq4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <bd3d4fcbef5ae30e9d2e81d3fd8de055f38f30ca@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 3120 On 7/20/2024 11:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/20/24 11:28 AM, olcott wrote: >> void DDD() >> { >> HHH(DDD); >> } >> >> int main() >> { >> DDD(); >> } >> >> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt >> this is a design requirement. > > I don't know where you got the false idea that "Termination Analyzers" > were "Partial Halt Deciders", then most certainly are not. > > Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis for a > description, they deal with the related problem of determining if the > input program will halt for *ALL* inputs, not just a given one. > > > Yes, in computer science, where the building of partial Termination > Analyzers is an ongoing project, they often just drop the assumed > partial as everyone know the general problem is not universally solvable. > > Also, the answer must be correct, > > and the input must be a PROGRAM, which mean it includes ALL its code > that it uses, so for DDD, include the code for HHH. > >> >> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either >> aborts the simulation of its input or not. >> >> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort >> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} >> never stop running. > > But that is a DIFFERENT DDD then the one given to the HHH that aborted > it emulation, and thus your logic is based on LYING. > Sure of course everyone knows that when you examine every element of an infinite set that there are a whole bunch of elements of this infinite set that you never examined after you have examined every single one of them. Likewise when you are no longer hungry after getting something to eat this conclusively proves that you never were hungry thus never needed to eat. Are you really sure that you want to swear your allegiance to the father of lies? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer