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