Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:04:33 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 138 Message-ID: <1042lm1$3cng8$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> <1033pf6$25t1$1@dont-email.me> <1035vdm$10d9c$1@dont-email.me> <1036qg0$16lpk$3@dont-email.me> <103okdk$r70r$1@dont-email.me> <103oq0u$rq7e$6@dont-email.me> <103qucv$1ehdt$1@dont-email.me> <103ri63$1icfh$1@dont-email.me> <103tn3g$23s8o$1@dont-email.me> <1040m8p$2rp6n$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 09:04:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9af128c8c00c4ba870cfef0842378a3a"; logging-data="3563016"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+5WkvU+Oh3Sir+38lK0yXf" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:1BnHKUf8ZY0qKgyFItYcH3/2djU= On 2025-07-01 13:02:17 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/30/2025 4:58 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-29 14:21:55 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/29/2025 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-28 13:17:17 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/28/2025 6:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-21 17:34:55 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/21/2025 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-20 13:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that HHH is not interesting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *then the HP proofs are proved to be wrong* >>>>>> >>>>>> Does not follow. HHH and DDD are irrelevant to those proofs. >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> When I dumbed the original self-referential proof down >>>>> to HHH(DDD) everyone here proved that they did not even >>>>> understand what ordinary recursion is. >>>> >>>> That you are dumb does not mean that others don't understand >>>> ordinary recursion. >>>> >>> >>> Mensa scored me on the top 3% of the population. >> >> Your intelligence, not wisdom. >> >>> This is a little more difficult than ordinary recursion. >> >> Perhaps to your little mind. >> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    HHH(DDD); >>>    return; >>> } >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002192] 55             push ebp >>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD >>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH >>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 >>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp >>> [000021a3] c3             ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >>> >>> The x86 source code of DDD specifies that this emulated >>> DDD cannot possibly reach its own emulated "ret" instruction >>> final halt state when emulated by HHH according to the >>> semantics of the x86 language. >> >> That defect in HHH is already known and a possible fix has been proposed. > > Four Chatbots all agree that the input to simulating termination > analyzer HHH(DDD) specifies non-terminating recursive emulation > even though the directly executed DDD() halts. It is easier to agree than to think, escpecially as artificial idiots don't care about truth. -- Mikko