Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: What is the best way for termination analyzers to handle pathological inputs? Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:14:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1027isi$on4i$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2025 23:14:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a041b768f2f60fa832e047729279e65a"; logging-data="810130"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+de30ZZPgCbR6c1KtVYlFW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:DVxBpLo3C45hBUWBEykO4cAZzfo= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-4, 6/9/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US The official "received view" of this is that the best we can possibly do is to do nothing and give up. void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) specifies recursive simulation that can never reach its *simulated "return" instruction final halt state* because this input specifies that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. *Every rebuttal to this changes the words* -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer