Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:09:43 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <vovfv8$15ohc$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me> <von0iq$3d619$1@dont-email.me>
 <vondj5$3ffar$1@dont-email.me> <vopke4$3v10c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vosn00$jd5m$1@dont-email.me>
 <f9a0a18d52ac35171173e0c60c9062e03343ad68@i2pn2.org>
 <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:09:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="82b83801e0addd12ebdacc994419356f";
	logging-data="1237548"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+bvkz7SEMHd45A3qYL9AHv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f7W0xObEdtWWPsK4OnF+m8/2btc=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250217-0, 2/16/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5736

On 2/17/2025 3:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 16.feb.2025 om 23:51 schreef olcott:
>> On 2/16/2025 4:30 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 15:58:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 2/16/2025 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:24:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/16/2025 10:35 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:51:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/15/2025 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 12:40:04 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/14/2025 2:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-14 00:07:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DD  correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate 
>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That claim has already shown to be false. Nothing above shows that
>>>>>>>>> HHH does not return 0. If it does DD also returns 0.
>>>>>>>> When we are referring to the above DD simulated by HHH and not
>>>>>>>> trying to get away with changing the subject to some other DD
>>>>>>>> somewhere else
>>>>>>> such as one that calls a non-aborting version of HHH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then anyone with sufficient knowledge of C programming knows 
>>>>>>>> that no
>>>>>>>> instance of DD shown above simulated by any corresponding instance
>>>>>>>> of HHH can possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>> Well, then that corresponding (by what?) HHH isn’t a decider.
>>>>>> I am focusing on the isomorphic notion of a termination analyzer.
>>>>> (There are other deciders that are not termination analysers.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer correctly rejects any input that
>>>>>> must be aborted to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>> Yes, in particular itself is not such an input, because we *know* that
>>>>> it halts, because it is a decider. You can’t have your cake and eat it
>>>>> too.
>>>> I am not even using the confusing term "halts".
>>>> Instead I am using in its place "terminates normally".
>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>> What’s confusing about „halts”? I find it clearer as it does not imply
>>> an ambiguous „abnormal termination”. How does HHH simulate DD
>>> terminating abnormally, then? Why doesn’t it terminate abnormally
>>> itself?
>>> You can substitute the term: the input DD to HHH does not need to be
>>> aborted, because the simulated decider terminates.
>>>
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    HHH(DD);
>> }
>>
>> Every simulated input that must be aborted to
>> prevent the non-termination of HHH is stipulated
>> to be correctly rejected by HHH as non-terminating.
>>
> A very strange and invalid stipulation.

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

http://amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer