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 -- I reread this again more carefully
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:15:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <v7i20r$3ucnd$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>
 <v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hnu6$3pd9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0dda3e0d0e85081d8ce0cdd494f5f1f8f8c89e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v7huen$3u1jc$3@dont-email.me>
 <6883b0a9674975998092c404f9eaa331ad1556b9@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 06:15:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="4141805"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1ZALinc58eWY52aTWRBdV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f+WoRoPy59DBrApOZHb1FaA9a/4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6883b0a9674975998092c404f9eaa331ad1556b9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7683

On 7/20/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 9:23 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, 
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about real hardware here not figments
>>>> of your imagination.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which 
>>> never stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a 
>>> piece of software running on it, and what it does can't affect the 
>>> behavior of the actual CPU running the program.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input
>>>> this emulated input immediately stops running.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the 
>>> facts.
>>>
>>> It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can 
>>> not understand it.
>>>
>>> The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops 
>>> doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.
>>>
>>
>> *If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running*
> 
> No, the SIMULA*TION* stops running, the SIMULATED (which is the actual 
> program) behaviof continues.
> 

Yes you are clueless.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When the simulation stops running the whole program
exits to the operating system.

> Does you computer program stop at a point just because someone aborted a 
> simulation at that poiint?
> 



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