Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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 19:21:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <v7hkb2$3otgn$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>
 <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
 <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hftt$3o7r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@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 02:21:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="3962391"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1fxArH6QMBAIykEWW1BdS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zHD963f0AtR/HjLJYYIZ478sFb4=
In-Reply-To: <f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4999

On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>> Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard the 
>>> teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not just 
>>> honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, so 
>>> can not "Kill" it.
>>>
>>
>> So you are trying to get away with the lie
>> that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>>
> 
> No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.

So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?


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