Path: ...!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: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 20:55:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vea0iq$3cg0k$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 03:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45d09d337d8f7f50056d122f5780fe20";
	logging-data="3555348"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19FlUkRlZgwCiN/vqShuZx2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ONpDfcUAmwNFAeciJvfr6nm/q0=
In-Reply-To: <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4947

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. 
> or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem.
> 

It seems to me that you just said that:
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
<is not>
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.

Instead you seemed to have said that:
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
is the behavior of DDD when directly executed.

Is this what you mean?

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