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.lang.c
Subject: Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2025 22:26:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <vsss8i$d1q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vss56v$375du$2@dont-email.me> <vss91c$3b1no$1@dont-email.me>
 <vssabb$3aqnp$2@dont-email.me> <vssavl$3b2j0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vssi7p$3ipb5$3@dont-email.me> <vssjlr$3gd7d$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 05:26:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="793f083d72b4d17330ab83742da338c2";
	logging-data="13370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rHKbx4TL9CN4ouRiBZsQY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z4erBpougkFL+yl8RJHKRKP4/GY=
In-Reply-To: <vssjlr$3gd7d$4@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250405-6, 4/5/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 3617

On 4/5/2025 7:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/04/2025 01:35, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/5/2025 5:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 05/04/2025 23:20, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2025 4:58 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> hp(arg candidate, arg testdata)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    if(terminates(candidate(testdata)))
>>>>>    {
>>>>>      while(forever);
>>>>>    }
>>>>>    else
>>>>>    {
>>>>>      halt;
>>>>>    }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> We then invoke the program:
>>>>>
>>>>> hp(hp, hp)
>>>>>
>>>>> and try to predict what terminates() will report, and of course the 
>>>>> answer is that we don't know, because neither does terminates(). 
>>>>> The function cannot be written.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Understanding my simpler example was a mandatory
>>>> prerequisite
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Understanding my example isn't mandatory either, which is just as 
>>> well where you're concerned.
>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> That's fine, but it does beg the HHH() question. You are handwaving 
>>> it for the same reason I am, which is that it can't be written. The 
>>> difference between us is that I know it and you don't.
>>>
>>
>> HHH(DDD) is isomorphic to HHH(DD),
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
>> yet failing
>> to understand that HHH(DDD) meets the
>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>> prevents the significance of this from being seen.
> 
> It has no significance.
> 
> There are only two possibilities: either it always gives the right 
> answer or it doesn't. If it gives the wrong answer, it's of no interest.
> 
> If it is claimed always to give the right answer, it becomes possible 
> (as shown above in the chevrons) to write a program for which it will 
> not be able to work out the right answer - reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> Your 'principle' doesn't matter a jot.
> 

Except that it gives the correct
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
answer for the Halting Problems impossible input.
The computer science of termination analyzers might agree.

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