Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:06:03 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me> <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org> <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me> <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org> <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me> <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org> <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me> <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org> <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me> <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me> <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org> <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me> <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me> <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org> <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me> <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me> <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:06:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d0bc34b872734cf530623657e35aa79f";
	logging-data="1498066"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/3iFGHuNObTe8WY0qyuKD"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ef+j9cyfuIUqvLqcgpcZ6Jk82hE=
Bytes: 5361

On 2024-08-15 12:59:30 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/15/2024 3:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.aug.2024 om 23:08 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
>>>>>>>>>>> "return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and correct
>>>>>>>>>> emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of DDD by HHH)
>>>>>>>>>> will reach that return.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
>>>>>>>>> contradiction in terms.
>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and unlimited
>>>>>>>> emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
>>>>>>> complete emulation would never halt.
>>>>>> What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete simulations.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> *You corrected Joes most persistent error*
>>> She made sure to ignore this correction.
>>> 
>>>> But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly halt.
>>> 
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>> 
>>> A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in
>>> infinite recursion until aborted.
>> 
>> It is aborted, so the infinite recursion is just a dream.
> 
> All simulating termination analyzers are required
> to predict what the behavior would be when the
> emulation is unlimited (never aborted) otherwise
> they could never report on the behavior of this function:
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> Also something that you consistently ignore is that
> HHH is not reporting on its own behavior. HHH is only
> predicting whether or not an unlimited emulation of
> DDD would reach the "return" instruction of DDD.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }

Actually HHH does not report at all. HHH just returns one value for
some inputs and another vaule for other inputs. HHH does not tell
how those values correlate with any features of the input. It is
the user's problem to interprete the inputs. The author of the
program should tell what the inputs mean but the user should be
aware that the infromation given by the author may be incorrect.
The author has not proven anything abut the interpretation of
the answers by HHH.

-- 
Mikko