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: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:55:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vqhlp4$6fo8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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> <vqgf57$3qhke$6@dont-email.me>
 <vqghe3$3i9$1@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 15:55:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c14993851bff7f2fc4c0464fbde9e46c";
	logging-data="212744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KXXXujget9Te4Qv6B3RKE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R5Z8kmjYJfYivWK+oUBJ74bd3sA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqghe3$3i9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5982

On 3/7/2025 11:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point
> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
> 
> 
Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point
that halt deciders / termination analyzers map 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

Which your HHH does not do and therefore can't be applied to the halting 
problem