Path: ...!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: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:17:45 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <ve82j9$337f1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me> <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me> <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me> <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org> <ve76ad$2reoe$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d591bbb3854d5810a02601aa59b70b70";
	logging-data="3251681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HmukOiFjf/hzTWmMbiOn+"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1hYtho9t3aWhH1Kb5+6GgNTvoUk=
Bytes: 4521

On 2024-10-10 00:15:09 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>> ... after a short break.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
>>>>>>> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
>>>>>>> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
>>>>>>> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
>>>>>>> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
>>>>>>> that Peter is running rings around you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one sensible
>>>>>>> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
>>>>>>> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
>>>>>>> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly what you
>>>>>>> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
>>>>>>> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
>>>>>>> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more than one
>>>>>>> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
>>>>>>> fact, trying to help.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more progress 
>>>>>> than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the regulars are 
>>>>>> lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody off the deserted 
>>>>>> streets at night.
>>>>> 
>>>>> HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
>>>>> address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
>>>>> of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.
>>>> 
>>>> But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>> 
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what you do)
>>>> 
>>>> Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- terminating 
>>>> behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>>>> 
>>>>> One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
>>>>> finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to return 0.
>>>> 
>>>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>>>> exist never returns
>>>> 
>>>> More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) 
>>>> that returns 0 will halt.
>>>> 
>>>> The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that never 
>>>> returns an answer.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> *Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*
>> 
>> WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>> 
>>> 
>>> DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
>>> exist never returns
>> 
>> No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly executed.
> 
> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID !!!

Why did you not say that truth?

-- 
Mikko