Path: ...!2.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 21:25:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <v7hri8$3tn3h$2@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>
 <v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hokk$3phhn$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d3efd3e375c13ce1b313693d756734481804e52@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hpou$3pmkh$2@dont-email.me>
 <8423c2f75f2d88234a4b596778976d82c3382944@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 04:25:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="4119665"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+2701zacKUtekL+p7VoMk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lSIhArnWmtuUnQUpXdoPWgNi404=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8423c2f75f2d88234a4b596778976d82c3382944@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7699

On 7/20/2024 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) 
>>>>> that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but 
>>>>> the behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues, to the return 
>>>>> if HHH aborts its simulation and returns, as the behavior of ALL 
>>>>> copies of DDD do not "stop" just because some simulator gave up 
>>>>> looking at it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you never understood that the input to an x86
>>>> emulator is a static finite string of bytes that does not do
>>>> anything at all on its own?
>>>>
>>>
>>> But it represents a program that does,
>>
>> There is no representing to it.
>> It is static data within the x86 emulator process.
>>
> 
> 
> In other words, you have just been lying for years about doing the 
> Halting problem, whose input is the reperesentation of the program to be 
> decided.
> 
> No program to be decided on, no program to be emulated.
> 

There is never any representing involved when a simulator
correctly simulates a finite string.

It has always been a mapping from the static finite string
to the behavior specified by this finite string.

> It mean you are just admitting that all you are doing is talking about 
> your POOP.
> 
> Throw away to problems actual definition and all you work that you claim 
> to be ablut it become nothing but LIES.
> 
> You can't even connect that string of bytes to you description of it 
> being "DDD" without a concept of representation, as the bytes do not 
> have names on them.

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