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: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 11:53:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 135 Message-ID: <103c0r8$1cme6$3@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:54:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="aba4fd94e23f35feda5a08373e14adce"; logging-data="1464774"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UB96RxDPcyOX5wDryKSgc" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7DaZCk643YpYam7rej7htvooDjY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <103auui$13u7i$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250623-2, 6/23/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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. As long as a simulating termination analyzer correctly determines the halt status of a single input then it is a correct STA for this input. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer