Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 20:36:30 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <vvu46e$1c062$6@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 02:36:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="525f3751cca56668838a1ae1f1e0ddfb";
	logging-data="1441986"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EQWSZoPMbn0vKW29CgV0I"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KwwTIL67jDBKHNtd5/mUJ6DJXAY=
In-Reply-To: <vvu42d$1cmbo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3027

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.  What you state works under the false 
assumption that it is possible.