Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 21:10:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vt7gc9$26bcv$2@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$4@dont-email.me>
 <vsss8i$d1q$1@dont-email.me> <vt52eo$nrf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vt6a5j$12sjs$1@dont-email.me> <vt70fd$1mtvn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt78qo$1t4il$2@dont-email.me> <vt7g19$26bcv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 06:10:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1d36cabcbafabd2745ccb32a63424ad";
	logging-data="2305439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kdZnZpBh/tLwJWLbIGAvudDdWVp1P3Xw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y0MaGvxkTVKiLpDsIZh4EMhztDE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vt7g19$26bcv$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3558

On 4/9/2025 9:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 4/9/2025 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/9/2025 6:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2025 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/9/2025 1:00 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 4/5/2025 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/5/2025 7:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> is this pseudo-code akin to your decider?
>>>>>
>>>>> bool
>>>>> halts()
>>>>> {
>>>>>      return (rand_normal() < .5f);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all it has been fully operational software for
>>>> about three years:
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>
>>>> 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);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Some version of HHH has been able to return the correct
>>>> halt status for some version of DD for about three years.
>>>> HHH is always correct for inputs in its domain.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is your decider 100% correct for any "black box" program?
>>
>> Of course not and I never claimed any such thing.
> 
> So, its better than my "50/50" rand decider?

Actually, it would be nice if your system can give an interesting 
probability wrt halt or not exposed to a black box... Perhaps the its a 
slightly gray box, where you can run some data reaper programs on it...

> 
>> Are you trolling me? It seems that your dialogue
>> is grossly insincere.
>>
>