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: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt (Halting Problem)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 23:33:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <vt28vk$1fe7a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vso4a5$302lq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsqhuu$1hl94$2@dont-email.me> <vsqknb$1ldpa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsrmn8$2o2f2$1@dont-email.me> <vstku7$p4u7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsu95l$1c5kt$1@dont-email.me> <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:33:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e087a1ec6e64acbc78115b2638f40c1c";
	logging-data="1554666"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199+cWbmHv3Z2SyD/neBtl+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jyqaMX9RoVmGqwVGDQiT0D0waRQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250407-4, 4/7/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vt01l0$39kn7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4360

On 4/7/2025 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-04-06 16:12:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 4/6/2025 5:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-04-05 16:45:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-04-05 06:18:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/4/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-04-04 01:27:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really think that anyone knowing the C
>>>>>>>> programming language is too stupid to see that
>>>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone knowing the C language can see that if DDD() does not halt
>>>>>>> it means that HHH(DDD) does not halt. The knowledge that that
>>>>>>> means that HHH is not a decider is possible but not required.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Perpetually ignoring this is not any actual rebuttal at all*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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. The
>>>>>> only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that
>>>>>> deciders must always halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, because a termination analyzer is not required to halt.
>>>>
>>>> Why say things that you know are untrue?
>>>
>>> The term "termination analyzer" is used about programs that do not halt
>>> on every input. There is no strict derfiniton of the term so there is
>>> no requirement about halting.
>>>
>>> On the first page of https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~zkincaid/pub/ 
>>> pldi21.pdf
>>> in the first parapgraph of Introduction:
>>>
>>>    For example, termination analyzers may themselves fail to 
>>> terminate on
>>>    some input programs, or ...
>>>
>>>> A termination analyzer that doesn't halt
>>>> would flunk every proof of total program correctness.
>>>
>>> There are no total termination analyzers.
>>
>> Total proof of correctness does not require a halt
>> decider, it only requires a termination analyzer
>> with inputs in its domain.
> 
> Depends on what one wants to prove correct.
> 
> Often there is no way to determine whether a pariticular termination
> analyser can determine about a particular program.
> 

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);
}

*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.

Rational minds would agree that the above principle
is correct and directly applies to HHH(DD) rejecting
its input.

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