Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 10:27:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v8pust$icn0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me> <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8n9qm$3ulus$1@dont-email.me> <v8nseg$1n09$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 09:27:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bbfb59f828059e193a33ed558dfca0d5";
	logging-data="602848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sVdHHiQNOK6q3OrqNIwWA"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DbPBzOCE//Dp9IdbKQUoWopbOGM=
Bytes: 3003

On 2024-08-04 12:33:20 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>> 
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> 
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>> 
>>>>> *UNTIL*
>>>>> 
>>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
>>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
>>>> 
>>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
>>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
>>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
>>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>> 
>> Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its
>> own return instruction depends on code not shown below?
>> 
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates
> N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity.

That is not stipulated above. Anyway, that stipulation would not
alter the correctness of my answer.

-- 
Mikko