Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 09:40:35 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 160 Message-ID: <103h1p3$2q86f$6@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> <1030bat$3nqlm$1@dont-email.me> <1030cm3$3o34h$2@dont-email.me> <10337ev$lrcj$1@dont-email.me> <103453k$4ms9$6@dont-email.me> <1035vgs$10dm8$1@dont-email.me> <1036qhv$16lpk$4@dont-email.me> <1038gqh$eb9o$1@dont-email.me> <1039l7p$n1od$2@dont-email.me> <103auui$13u7i$1@dont-email.me> <103c0r8$1cme6$3@dont-email.me> <103dp9t$1tq4v$1@dont-email.me> <103eemj$22250$13@dont-email.me> <103g6es$2kbf2$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 16:40:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2a79ef080f15f5ebab8247a019f1c31b"; logging-data="2957519"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Z2y6hbBANlkk2fN6srzJP" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:oZIvRTZO+EehVsn9ispGAk3a6Uw= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250625-2, 6/25/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <103g6es$2kbf2$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 6/25/2025 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2025-06-24 15:02:43 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/24/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-06-23 16:53:59 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/23/2025 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-06-22 19:23:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/22/2025 4:02 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-06-21 17:35:58 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2025 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-20 17:17:40 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 07:02:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 1:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-18 18:28:43 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He is not doing even that. What he is doing is totally >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> scope of the halting problem. He has already verified that >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD halts >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that HHH does not report that DDD halts. Nothing else >>>>>>>>>>>>> is relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>> in context of the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If his intent is to deceive he should avoid clarity at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least as much >>>>>>>>>>>>> as he has recently done. His switch from "halting decider" to >>>>>>>>>>>>> "termination analyzer" >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> is a more accurate term for what I am referring to. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not really as you are only talking about programs that do not >>>>>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>>>>> any input. Termination analysis is about programs that do >>>>>>>>>>> take input. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Inputs are typical yet not required. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ability to analyze (at least some) programs that take inputs is >>>>>>>>> required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No that is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you quote any author allowing a termination analyzer that is >>>>>>> restricted >>>>>>> to programs that do not take any input? >>>>>> >>>>>> The ability to correctly determine the halt status >>>>>> of at least one program that takes no inputs meets >>>>>> the requirement of being a termination analyzer for >>>>>> that one program. >>>>> >>>>> It does not prove that all requirements are met, in particular the >>>>> requirement that the analyzer must be able to analyze programs that >>>>> do take input. >>>> >>>> That is a bogus requirement. >>> >>> No, it is not. It is essential to the meaning of the term. >>> A nut cracker is not a hammer although both can produce the same >>> effenct on nuts. >>> >> >> A termination analyzer determines the halt status >> of a program for every input that this program takes. >> >> When it does this for a program that takes no inputs >> it is still doing this for every input that this >> program takes. > > You mean a nutcracker is a hammer? > A termination analyzer correctly determines the halt status of an input program specification for every input that this program can take. A program specification taking zero inputs is merely the simpler case of this same algorithm. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer