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: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:12:52 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 107 Message-ID: <103aupj$13t8e$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$3@dont-email.me> <1038glb$e9bd$1@dont-email.me> <1039kq9$n1od$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 09:12:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ff9eeb82472defb391a609f5929552bc"; logging-data="1176846"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5UHhBfnn/vJDml4LBIwxr" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:9PrXGWUXJpX4P6l507SELCVqt30= On 2025-06-22 19:16:24 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/22/2025 3:59 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* >> >> No, they are not. You have not solved the halting problem and that >> (in addition to all proofs) supports the claim that halting problem >> is unsolvable. > > ChatGPT corrected my words and agreed that I have > correctly refuted the generic HP proof technique > where an input has been defined to only do the > opposite of whatever value that its decider decides. > https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6857335b37a08191a077d57039fa4a76 Doesn't matter. Only proofs matter. So far you have not proven anything and it is unlikely you could prove anything even after asking ChatGPT for help. > The ChatGPT that evaluated and affirmed my analysis > of HHH(DDD) one year ago could only handle 4000 tokens > thus could not understand HHH(DD). > > ChatGPT with GPT-4-turbo — can handle up to 128,000 tokens > of context in a single conversation, immediately understood > HHH(DD) within the context of the conversation of HHH(DDD). ChatGPT does not understand. Whether you do is still not determined. Anyway, >> In order to show that a proof is wrong you need to show an error >> in the proof. Even then the conclusion is proven unless you can >> show an error in every proof of that conclusion. -- Mikko