Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!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, 25 Jun 2025 09:43:29 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 130 Message-ID: <103g5qh$2k692$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> <1030a1j$3ng4g$1@dont-email.me> <1030cg9$3o34h$1@dont-email.me> <1030k4e$3pfos$3@dont-email.me> <1033744$lp5p$1@dont-email.me> <10344pu$4ms9$5@dont-email.me> <1035v1e$10aok$1@dont-email.me> <1036qcm$16lpk$2@dont-email.me> <1038fve$e59u$1@dont-email.me> <1039bgi$k7rv$4@dont-email.me> <103auh3$13r4l$1@dont-email.me> <103c0gl$1cme6$1@dont-email.me> <103dp0k$1tobk$1@dont-email.me> <103eedb$22250$11@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 08:43:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ef2776498780f57a54aabc41c50d80"; logging-data="2758946"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bJTthV+x4AbTzAoQ45DCA" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:EfDCA9VM+dUMaexca9D2dsyoQHU= On 2025-06-24 14:57:47 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/24/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-06-23 16:48:20 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/23/2025 2:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-06-22 16:37:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/22/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-06-21 17:33:10 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/21/2025 4:46 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-06-20 17:12:30 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-19 09:09:34 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 08:59 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 1:17 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-18 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is known a priori that HHH either does or does not abort. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Very good. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH does >>>>>>>>>>>>> not abort it does not terminate the simulation of DDD and therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD never stops running. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> because HHH never stops running and therefore this HHH >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>>> not report correctly. If HHH does abort it reports that DDD does not >>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, which is incorrect as in that case DDD does halt. HHH is correct >>>>>>>>>>>>> about DDD only if it does abort its simulation and reports "halts". >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you HHH does not do that. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, both the aborting and the non-aborting HHH do not provide a correct report. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My HHH, if given DDD for input, does abort and does give the correct report >>>>>>>>>> but gives the worng report if given DD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, because that is not well claimed. You have used "HHH" in at least >>>>>>>> two different meanings and it is not clear which meaning is intended. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *clearer words* >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sufficiently clearer than the previous attempt. >>>>> >>>>> Since you did not say exactly what seems unclear to >>>>> you I am taking this as a dishonest dodge away from the point. >>>> >>>> You are lying. I did say. Your second attermpt does not clarify what >>>> I did say was unclear. You didn't say what it did clarify, so >>>> apparently nothing. You just claimed that an exact copy is clearer. >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> All of those words are perfectly clear to me. >> >> Isn't my HHH as a suffifient answer? If not, ask again when you >> have clarified all points I or someone else has identified as >> ambiguous. > > You are playing head games. Indeed I am playing your games. But if they were head gaems you would win. -- Mikko