Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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 07:53:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <ve8iob$354g5$3@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>
 <307da0d6504494d6bba2b52b14d735d408b53c54@i2pn2.org>
 <ve7gvi$30h1o$1@dont-email.me>
 <77ee281a7ca732b64eb0d09d18f3117921e4072f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2024 14:53:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="515b45b501ce844a27ace5f6ef725064";
	logging-data="3314181"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oW9my9pwV1HBeNu8Bs36O"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mVt557HfuGG6G/g4EyCbozXiC3Y=
In-Reply-To: <77ee281a7ca732b64eb0d09d18f3117921e4072f@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5902

On 10/10/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/9/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/9/2024 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/9/24 8:15 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. 
>>>>
>>>> THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID !!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are admitting you don't know what your words mean? Since that 
>>> *IS* what they mean. Your failure to even attempt to refute my 
>>> grammer analysis shows you accept my logic, or at least can't fight it.
>>
>> You are not talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
>>
> 
> But that was what your previous sentence was talking about, 

counter-factual.

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