Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:51:07 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6883b0a9674975998092c404f9eaa331ad1556b9@i2pn2.org> References: <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org> <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org> <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org> <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 03:51:07 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3938152"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8013 Lines: 168 On 7/20/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a design requirement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>>>>> You missed a couple details: >>>>>>>>>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not >>>>>>>>>>>> classified >>>>>>>>>>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; >>>>>>>>>>>> they and the >>>>>>>>>>>> simulator halt on their own. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH aborts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ever needs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running? >>>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> exist aborts >>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>     return; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot >>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own return instruction. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this as you admit below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard >>>>>>>> the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not >>>>>>>> just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for >>>>>>>>>> it to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code >>>>>>>> does, so can not "Kill" it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with the lie >>>>>>> that an aborted simulation keeps on running. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters. >>>>> >>>>> So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function >>>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) >>>> that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the >>>> behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues, >>> >>> We are talking about real hardware here not figments >>> of your imagination. >>> >> >> No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which >> never stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a >> piece of software running on it, and what it does can't affect the >> behavior of the actual CPU running the program. >> >> >>> When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input >>> this emulated input immediately stops running. >>> >> >> Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the >> facts. >> >> It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can not >> understand it. >> >> The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops >> doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question. >> > > *If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running* No, the SIMULA*TION* stops running, the SIMULATED (which is the actual program) behaviof continues. Does you computer program stop at a point just because someone aborted a simulation at that poiint? > > void DDD() > { >   HHH(DDD); >   return; > } > > DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot > possibly reach its own return instruction. > > But HHH doesn't DO a "correct simulation" if it ever aborts and returns the answer about not halting. I guess you just don't know what "correct" means. You are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological liar that has shows that he has wasted his life by beliving his own lies. The halting problem, BY ITS DEFINITION, as about a decider deciding from an input representing the program to be decided on. Since you claim the input doesn't represent a program, it can't be a Halt Decider. A program include all of the code that it uses. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========