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 22:30:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vsssg6$d1q$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vss56v$375du$2@dont-email.me> <vss6ie$389d8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vss7av$375du$8@dont-email.me> <vss7em$389d8$5@dont-email.me>
 <vssa6p$3b2j0$2@dont-email.me> <vssaot$389d8$8@dont-email.me>
 <vsshvo$3ipb5$2@dont-email.me> <vssi5o$389d8$11@dont-email.me>
 <vssio8$3ipb5$6@dont-email.me> <vsskud$3gd7d$7@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 05:30:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="793f083d72b4d17330ab83742da338c2";
	logging-data="13370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nFhQltkCh0g5F/VZAt63w"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0c0zh/pd7XRt1kVmUCIkdgcU0Ys=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250405-6, 4/5/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vsskud$3gd7d$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4056

On 4/5/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/04/2025 01:43, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/5/2025 7:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2025 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/2025 5:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/04/2025 22:31, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/5/2025 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2025 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2025 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>>>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination
>>>>>>>>>> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
>>>>>>>>>> would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except when doing so would change the input, as is the case 
>>>>>>>>> with HHH and DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You may disagree that the above definition
>>>>>>>> of simulating termination analyzer is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is self-evident that HHH must stop simulating
>>>>>>>> DDD to prevent its own non-termination.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're right, but it doesn't matter very much as long as 
>>>>>> terminates() *always* gets the answer right for any arbitrary 
>>>>>> program tape and any data tape. Mr Olcott's fails to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you're correct. His criteria is basically what happens if 
>>>>> you replace the code of X with a pure simulator and run X(Y) for 
>>>>> some Y.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everyone else seems to think that the correct way
>>>> to handle a pathological relationship between an
>>>> input and a termination analyzer is to simply ignore
>>>> the differences that this makes. THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT !!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ignoring the relationship is exactly what you do when you change the 
>>> code of HHH, thereby changing the input.
>>>
>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>
>> Ignoring the fact that the pathological
>> relationship between the input and the
>> termination analyzer changes the behavior
>> of the input is certainly incorrect.
> 
> The analyser is supposed to report on the behaviour of the input program 
> as is, not a mutated version.
> 

The pathological relationship DOES CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR.
THIS CANNOT BE CORRECTLY IGNORED.

REPORTING ON THIS CHANGED BEHAVIOR CANNOT BE INCORRECT.

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