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: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:16:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 165
Message-ID: <veb4vb$3lbkf$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>
 <vea0iq$3cg0k$1@dont-email.me>
 <99e47ed4e1f732d090ffc11c42169f4970539e94@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 14:16:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45d09d337d8f7f50056d122f5780fe20";
	logging-data="3845775"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qxl8hGoNpq4ZDvIN//yo2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T12ayMPxMGmuk1BB+HJXWuYwr6Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <99e47ed4e1f732d090ffc11c42169f4970539e94@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7142

On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/10/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> No, (the behavior of ddd) [that was] emulated by HHH is a different 
> sentence then
> 
> the behavior (of DDD) [by] emulation by HHH
> 

That merely seem grammatically incorrect.
In any case I am only taking about 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.
> 
> (The behavior of DDD) is the behavior of DDD directly executed.
> 

I am only talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
That <is> the premise to my deduction.

When you change the premise to my deduction as the basis of
your rebuttal that <is> the strawman error.

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the
informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the
one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or
acknowledging the distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

> The emulated by HHH, just specifies WHICH DDD was look at.
> 
> The sentence, in the context of Computation Theory and the Halting 
> Problem, does not allow the "emulation" to modify behavior (which wasn't 
> in your original sentence to begin with) as which behavior is defined by 
> the technical definiitions of the field, something you have CHOSEN to no 
> learn, thus leading you into self-inflicted stupidity.
> 

No matter what anyone anywhere says
THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

You can legitimately say that is not that way that this
is typically done in the theory of computation.

>>
>> Is this what you mean?
>>
> 
> You are just proving you are trying to use an equivocation.

I am not using equivocation. You are changing the premise
to my reasoning and then applying the strawman fallacy.

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