Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:35:15 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org> <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 05:35:16 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5b4d58e8daf31241c353daa76a7ccdf"; logging-data="3657"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j1mgB2F16sOYI+53vlzJN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:8+Wa0fdhLLbJZt9hnlsz9nS0IKk= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250307-8, 3/7/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5656 On 3/7/2025 9:56 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/7/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/7/2025 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/7/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 3/7/2025 8:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO >>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE SHIT! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report >>>>>>>>>>>>> that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator >>>>>>>>>>>>> and running HHH(DD) will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' >>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject >>>>>>>> WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction >>>>>>> (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct >>>>>>> execution does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction. >>>>>> >>>>>> *set X* >>>>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination >>>>>> analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself >>>>> >>>>> Not an issue, since termination analyzers don't exist. >>>> >>>> I thought that you demonstrated knowledge of these things. >>>> Maybe I was wrong. >>>> >>> >>> We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm exists >>> that maps the halting function: >>> >>> (,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>> (,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>> directly >> >> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs >> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf >> AProVE seems to be the leading authority on what you say DOES NOT EXIST >> > > It should be noted that the term "analyzer" appears exactly ONCE in this > document outside of the bibliography (compared to 46 for "termination > analysis"), and that it focuses on the process of finding answers in > some cases. > > The point is that your HHH doesn't give the answer that a halt decider / > termination analyzer is stipulated to provide for DD. > Yet another lame attempt at dodging this infallibly correct point DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer