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: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 20:06:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vvu5uk$1d27t$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvte01$14pca$29@dont-email.me> <vvte62$15ceh$18@dont-email.me>
 <vvtej1$181kg$1@dont-email.me> <vvtjj8$15ceh$19@dont-email.me>
 <vvtl1g$19cvp$1@dont-email.me> <vvtlmm$15ceh$20@dont-email.me>
 <vvto7c$1a1pf$1@dont-email.me> <vvtpqu$1agqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvtq8d$1a1pf$2@dont-email.me> <vvtqn1$1agqu$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvtsmf$1aube$1@dont-email.me> <vvtsq5$1agqu$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvttf7$1bfib$1@dont-email.me> <vvu008$1c062$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvu0mm$1c0vi$1@dont-email.me> <vvu0si$1c062$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvu1m8$1c86j$1@dont-email.me> <vvu2q2$1c062$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvu3ht$1c86j$3@dont-email.me> <vvu3lm$1c062$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvu42d$1cmbo$1@dont-email.me> <vvu46e$1c062$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvu5ch$1csst$1@dont-email.me> <vvu5j3$1c062$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 03:06:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43745e07502355f27fac5eed8a7d2487";
	logging-data="1476861"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182TK7N55+3eqf6vEhI6X5X"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HZ4LDT85wfVa9cvruvdGuI1MN2Y=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250512-4, 5/12/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vvu5j3$1c062$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4071

On 5/12/2025 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2025 7:36 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2025 7:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2025 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzers cannot possibly report
>>>>>>>> on the actual behavior of non-terminating inputs
>>>>>>>> because this would cause themselves to never terminate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They must always hypothesize what the behavior of the
>>>>>>>> input would be if they themselves never aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False.  They must always hypothesize what the behavior of 
>>>>>>> algorithm described by the input would be if it was executed 
>>>>>>> directly, as per the requirements:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
>>>>>> that a simulating termination analyzer should
>>>>>> ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
>>>>>> input actually specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no requirement that building a termination analyzer, 
>>>>> simulating or otherwise, is possible.  In fact, it has proved to 
>>>>> not be possible by Linz and others, which you have *explicitly* 
>>>>> agreed with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you have no such actual reasoning.
>>>
>>> The reasoning is that there is no requirement that building a 
>>> termination analyzer is possible. 
>>
>> So you have no actual reasoning that addresses my
>> actual point.
>>
>>  >>>> Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
>>  >>>> that a simulating termination analyzer should
>>  >>>> ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
>>  >>>> input actually specifies.
>>
> 
> It makes sense because that's what's required to tell me if any 
> arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.
> 

Exactly what actual reasoning shows that this
is superior to reporting on the behavior that
its input actual specifies?

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