Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:56:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <vqgf57$3qhke$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqg7tm$3qhke$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqg9fc$3qol2$8@dont-email.me> <vqg9mo$3qhke$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqge88$3radn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 04:56:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c";
	logging-data="4015758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ONiTg0+k1w/4HDgvK608d"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yJAnOkJVdLyIJ2/FKbfQmQYI304=
In-Reply-To: <vqge88$3radn$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5167

On 3/7/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/7/2025 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2025 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE SHIT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and running HHH(DD) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' 
>>>>>>>> instruction. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject
>>>>>>> WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction 
>>>>>> (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct 
>>>>>> execution does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> *set X*
>>>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination
>>>>> analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself
>>>>
>>>> Not an issue, since termination analyzers don't exist.
>>>
>>> I thought that you demonstrated knowledge of these things.
>>> Maybe I was wrong.
>>>
>>
>> We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm exists 
>> that maps the halting function:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>> directly
> 
> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
> AProVE seems to be the leading authority on what you say DOES NOT EXIST
> 

It should be noted that the term "analyzer" appears exactly ONCE in this 
document outside of the bibliography (compared to 46 for "termination 
analysis"), and that it focuses on the process of finding answers in 
some cases.

The point is that your HHH doesn't give the answer that a halt decider / 
termination analyzer is stipulated to provide for DD.