Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 22:03:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <v7htq8$3u1jc$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>
 <v7hri8$3tn3h$2@dont-email.me>
 <a7083462cfb1761d0ee5691304714725c7794eca@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 05:03:37 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="4130412"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+955eM4cq8xAA5JJnYmhjC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mfXcCmnZwXVBBAvzKqmXcAcLvRo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a7083462cfb1761d0ee5691304714725c7794eca@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8097

On 7/20/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Then you just don't understand the nature of the problem. But then, that 
> is an abstract concept which seems to be beyond your mental ability.
> 
>>
>> It has always been a mapping from the static finite string
>> to the behavior specified by this finite string.
> 
> That is what the decider does, but not what determines that correct answer.
> 

If you can't even understand how an interpreter works
then you lack the mandatory prerequisites.

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