Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers
 --- PROOF
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:54:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <vf3qn2$ihpl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me>
 <3232d8a0cc7b5d4bba46321bf682c94573bf1b7c@i2pn2.org>
 <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <522ecce215e636ddb7c9a1f75bff1ba466604cc5@i2pn2.org>
 <veuvt9$3hnjq$1@dont-email.me>
 <87634d01e18903c744d109aaca3a20b9ce4278bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vev8gg$3me0u$1@dont-email.me>
 <eb38c4aff9c8bc250c49892461ac25bfccfe303f@i2pn2.org>
 <vf051u$3rr97$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3f28689429722f86224d0d736115e4d1895299b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf1hun$39e3$1@dont-email.me>
 <dedb2801cc230a4cf689802934c4b841ae1a29eb@i2pn2.org>
 <vf1stu$8h0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <592109c757262c48aaca517a829ea1867913316b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf37qt$fbb3$1@dont-email.me>
 <b8862132632732d17892186510c3f0ca2a459755@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77a46f28b4cad16507a67d9d8c01a608";
	logging-data="608053"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mB+COpOEfYxqZxZGvrtM+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2FJ/4Ha+OTqqYFJYhY9MD2xJlNw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <b8862132632732d17892186510c3f0ca2a459755@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241020-4, 10/20/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 6242

On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/20/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/20/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/19/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/19/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/19/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are directly contradicting the verified fact that DDD
>>>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But that isn't what the question being asked 
>>>>
>>>> Sure it is. You are just in psychological denial as proven by
>>>> the fact that all attempted rebuttals (yours and anyone else's)
>>>> to the following words have been baseless.
>>>>
>>>> Does the input DDD to HHH specify a halting computation?
>>>
>>> Which it isn't, but is a subtle change of the actual question.
>>>
>>> The actual question (somewhat informally stated, but from the source 
>>> you like to use) says:
>>>
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
>>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and 
>>> an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run 
>>> forever.
>>>
>>
>> That is the problem. Because it is too informally stated
>> it can be misunderstood. No one ever intended for any
>> termination analyzer to ever report on anything besides
>> the behavior that its input actually specifies.
> 
> What is "informal" about the actual problem.
> 
> The informality is that it comes from a non-academic source, so doesn't 
> use the formal terminology, which you just wouldn't understand.
> 
> What is to be misunderstood?
> 
> Given that you start with a program, which is defined as the fully 
> detailed set of deterministic steps that are to be performed, and that 
> such a program, will do exactly one behavior for any given input given 
> to it, says that there is, BY DEFINITIOH a unique and specific answer 
> that the analysize must give to be correct.
> 
> The requirement says that the user needs to, by the rules defined by the 
> analyszer, describe that program, and if the analyzer is going to be 
> able to qualify, must define at least one way (but could be multiple) of 
> creating the proper description of that input program, and that an given 
> input that meets that requirement will exactly represent only a singe 
> equivalence set of programs (an equivalence set of programs is a set of 
> programs that all members always produce the same output results for 
> every possible input). Thus, there must exist a unique mapping from each 
> input to such an equivalence set to a correct answer.
> 
> Thus, it is THAT BEHAVIOR, the behavior of the full program that *IS* 
> the behavior that its input actually specifies.
> 
> WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?
> 
> 
> Now, this does point out that you claim of what could be the "finite- 
> string input" for you HHH, can't possible be such a correct input,
> 
>>
>>> So, DDD is the COMPUTER PROGRAM to be decided on, 
>>
>> No not at all. When DDD is directly executed it specifies a
>> different sequence of configurations than when DDD is emulated
>> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> And what step actually correctly emulated created the first difference 
> in sequence?
> 
> You have been asked this many times, and just fail to answer, because 
> your claim has just been proven to be a *LIE*, so of course you can't 
> find a proof for it,
> 
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > ... PO really /has/ an H (it's trivial to do for this one case)
>>  > that correctly determines that P(P) *would* never stop running
>>  > *unless* aborted.
> 
> But that is just admitting that your HHH isn't answering the HALTING 
> PROBLEM, but the POOP problem, which has a different domain
> 

HHH must answer about the actual behavior of its input.
This behavior <is> correctly measured by DDD emulated
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.


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