Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:09:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 71 Message-ID: <102v2u7$3a7t7$1@dont-email.me> References: <102sjg5$2k3e9$1@dont-email.me> <1607e7860c899b930b87d371c747708dbeaf1062@i2pn2.org> <102t67r$2o80a$1@dont-email.me> <102ugc3$35emj$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 21:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="181068feba52be991947ff9f62d7131d"; logging-data="3481511"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+XG0+SqnOLl0TS7Di+0QAO" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QLyBvytdU7X0yhDFUVCzgO7qRF0= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250618-6, 6/18/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: On 6/18/2025 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:53:07 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 6/18/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/17/25 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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* *none of them ever >>>> stop running unless aborted* *none of them ever stop running unless >>>> aborted* >>>> >>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT? >>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT? >>>> Do you agree or can you refute THIS EXACT POINT? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> How about the fact that if they abort, they never did a correct >>> simulation, >> >> *You are not addressing THE EXACT POINT* >> >> *When HHH never aborts any of the above functions then* >> (a) None of the functions ever stops running. >> (b) Each of the above functions stops running anyway. > > You need to be clear that you are not making a claim about general > undecidability but a claim about the SPECIFIC CASE of pathological self > reference present in the classic Halting Problem definition .. the trolls > here (especially Damon and Mikko) like to ignore that you are doing that. > > /Flibble Yes that is what I am doing here. If my reviewers would not dishonestly change the subject as the basis of their rebuttal they would know that I am correct. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer