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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:02:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@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> <v9nbqr$1dmui$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 14:02:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1506767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+/HNAYQm2h7pJJy9zZEuOo"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GRcq1/lr3lZa5VB25c0wxcB8OPs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6017

On 8/16/2024 6:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

I must go one step at a time.
So far most people have not understood the first step.
What correct simulation is and how it is correctly measured.

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