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
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 17:47:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 00:47:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="3932526"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX191xbsOGfSBNdY5SNSYQz45"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GSYn1UH5efDQRSbHCl9EOoq9sxA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3913

On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
>>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>>> (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.
>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must 
>>>>>>>> abort
>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>>> You missed a couple details:
>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
>>> simulator halt on their own.
>>>
>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will 
>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>>> Pretty much.
>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
>>>>> need to.
>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist 
>>>> aborts
>>>> its simulation.
>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>     HHH(DDD);
>>     return;
>> }
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>
> 
> Wrong.
> 

You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:

> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, 

> but if 
> HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it to be a 
> decider) then the behavior of DDD 

Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.

> call HHH(DDD), for that HHH to 

Why condemn yourself to Hell over this?

> partially emulate DDD, and (after the point in that DDD that it 
> emulated) abort that emulation and return and thus DDD will return.



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