Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:58:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:58:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98ef4f11d97010b63c53911c6d37ff8b";
	logging-data="2992492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XvgSP81jvbHQ5ZFf7WNEi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fi7w3BjBsAnUJ214G5j6KoI2O7g=
In-Reply-To: <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5668

On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-24 13:38:08 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/24/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-23 14:41:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/23/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-22 15:05:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 15:28:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
>>>>>>>> this is a design requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a partial analyzer or deciders this is not always required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *You can't even get my words correctly*
>>>>>> A termination analyzer must report on the behavior of at least
>>>>>> one input for all of the inputs of this one input. This is
>>>>>> met when a termination analyzer analyzes an input having no inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A partial halt decider must correctly determine the halt status
>>>>>> of at least one input and its specific input (if any).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH is both a partial halt decider and a termination analyzer
>>>>>> for DDD and a few other inputs having no input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
>>>>>>>> aborts the simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This must be interpreted to mean that a simulating termination 
>>>>>>> analyzer
>>>>>>> may abort its simulation for some simulated abort and simulate 
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>> to the termination.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am talking about hypothetical possible ways that HHH could be 
>>>>>> encoded.
>>>>>> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
>>>>>> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The case is not very hypothetical. Given the HHH you already have,
>>>>>>> it is fairly easy to construct the "hypothetical" HHH and see what
>>>>>>> it actually does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
>>>>>> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The violation simply means that the "hypothetical" HHH is not a
>>>>>>> termination analyzer of partial halt decider in sense (a). What
>>>>>>> it "must" be or do depends on the requirements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Therefore (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect according to the
>>>>>> design requirements for HHH that it must halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted
>>>>>> is a non-halting input.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. The "must" and "non-halting" belong to different 
>>>>> worlds.
>>>>> The word "must" blongs to requirements. The word "non-halting" is a
>>>>> feature of a program. They are unrelated, so one cannot be inferred
>>>>> from the other.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When-so-ever there are two hypothetical possible way to encode
>>>> a simulating halt decider for a specific input
>>>> (a) one aborts its simulation of DDD
>>>> (b) never aborts its simulation of DDD
>>>
>>> Does the simulator that simulates the beginning and end of the
>>> simulated computation but skips a part in ghe middle belong to
>>> class (a) or class (b)?
>>>
>>
>> That is off topic. I am only referring to  a sequence of
>> 1 to N x86 machine language instructions simulated according
>> to the x86 semantic meaning of these instructions.
> 
> No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
> language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.
> 

In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
input x86 machine code.

That seems to be a pretty stupid thing to say when you know
that I have shown you an x86 program that does do those things.

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