Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:59:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <1033pf6$25t1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org>
 <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me> <102u3et$31q0g$4@dont-email.me>
 <102ufv8$35emj$1@dont-email.me> <1030kqk$3pfor$1@dont-email.me>
 <10319mv$3u901$7@dont-email.me> <103394q$m26r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:59:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f938b348c4e7170a4ede38a4382f6060";
	logging-data="71585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fR4Tdw50sqTLadzJICl0r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FqMoOsbSsi6XBdeYLiWYtAkUOK8=
In-Reply-To: <103394q$m26r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250620-0, 6/19/2025), Outbound message

On 6/20/2025 4:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:17 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/19/2025 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 15:46 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/18/2025 5:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 03:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2025 8:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/17/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When it is understood that HHH does simulate itself
>>>>>>>> simulating DDD then any first year CS student knows
>>>>>>>> that when each of the above are correctly simulated
>>>>>>>> by HHH that none of them ever stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHich means that the code for HHH is part of the input, and thus 
>>>>>>> there is just ONE HHH in existance at this time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since that code aborts its simulation to return the answer that 
>>>>>>> you claim, you are just lying that it did a correct simulation 
>>>>>>> (which in this context means complete)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *none of them ever stop running unless aborted*
>>>>>
>>>>> All of them do abort and their simulation does not need an abort.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *It is not given that any of them abort*
>>>>
>>>
>>> At least it is true for all aborting ones, such as the one you 
>>> presented in Halt7.c.
>>
>> My claim is that each of the above functions correctly
>> simulated by any termination analyzer HHH that can possibly
>> exist will never stop running unless aborted by HHH.
>> Can you affirm or correctly refute this? 

> Yes, I confirmed many times that we can confirm this vacuous claim, 
> because no such HHH exists. All of them fail to do a correct simulation 
> up to the point where they can see whether the input specifies a halting 
> program.

if DDD correctly simulated by any simulating termination
analyzer HHH never aborts its simulation of DDD then
(a) DDD simulated by HHH never stops running.
(b) Directly executed HHH() never stops running.
(c) Directly executed DDD() never stops running.

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