Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v8bkui$16ibk$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 --- stupid rebuttal
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:11:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <v8bkui$16ibk$1@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>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v84u29$3rmit$2@dont-email.me>
 <v88fat$i7kl$2@dont-email.me> <v8a23i$u202$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:11:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f90a0d55b5a8d8d362f50b9fb3171851";
	logging-data="1263988"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lUqC4rB5aJzdAFMRQsQag"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RGzVEX7gQn6XfzTZVD7hPGHdhUg=
In-Reply-To: <v8a23i$u202$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7567

On 7/30/2024 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-29 16:17:32 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/28/2024 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-27 13:55:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
>>>>> not saying what you falsely claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not lying I am paraphrasing so that we can come to a mutual
>>>> understanding.
>>>
>>> It is lying to paraphrase so that the original meaning is not preserved.
>>>
>>
>> I make my point mere clearly here:
>> [Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see...]
> 
> That does not alter the fact that you lied above. Therefore the term
> "honest person" does not include you. So what is your evidence that
> any (or even some) honest person can see...?
> 

*I clarified what I meant responding to your original message here*
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv8bc6j%24159av%241%40dont-email.me%3E

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