Sujet : Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 13. May 2025, 05:02:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <16cab64f3d5b4a5d1533d38030f611d262eeb055@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/12/25 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 9:58 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/12/2025 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 7:36 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 7:27 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/12/2025 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/12/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
On 5/12/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>
Simulating Termination analyzers cannot possibly report
on the actual behavior of non-terminating inputs
because this would cause themselves to never terminate.
>
They must always hypothesize what the behavior of the
input would be if they themselves never aborted.
>
>
False. They must always hypothesize what the behavior of algorithm described by the input would be if it was executed directly, as per the requirements:
>
>
Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
that a simulating termination analyzer should
ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
input actually specifies.
>
There is no requirement that building a termination analyzer, simulating or otherwise, is possible. In fact, it has proved to not be possible by Linz and others, which you have *explicitly* agreed with.
>
>
In other words you have no such actual reasoning.
>
The reasoning is that there is no requirement that building a termination analyzer is possible.
>
So you have no actual reasoning that addresses my
actual point.
>
>>>> Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
>>>> that a simulating termination analyzer should
>>>> ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
>>>> input actually specifies.
>
>
It makes sense because that's what's required to tell me if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.
>
>
A simulating termination analyzer(STA) reports on
the behavior of the direct execution of the
algorithm specified by its input except in the
case where the input calls this STA to try to fool it.
>
What you are proposing would cause HHH to get stuck
in infinite execution. How is getting stuck in
infinite execution better than not getting stuck?
>
In other words, if you assume that a termination analyzer exists,
Unlike a halt decider that is either ALL KNOWING
or wrong a termination analyzer is correct even
if it can only compute the mapping from a single
input (that has no inputs) to the behavior that
this input specifies and thus its halt status.
Where od you get this from?
Just like Halt Deciders, a Complete Termination Analyser needs to correctly answer for all input.
HHH(DD) does correctly compute the mapping from its
input to the behavior that this input specifies.
Nope, since DD Halts when run, and that is the DEFINITION of the behavior the input sepecifies.
HHH(DD) does not compute the mapping from its input
to BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT DOES NOT SPECIFY.
No, you are claiming that it should, since the behavior it specifies is the objective criteria of what the program it represents does when run, which is halting.
You are advocating that HHH soulud be computing the INCORRECT mapping of the subjective behavior of the partial emalation done by HHH, or the emulation of an input that it wasn't even given, since the input DD uses the one and only HHH in memory with it that aborts its emulation and returns 0.
The whole issue is that everyone here has been
indoctrinated into baselessly believing that
HHH should in some cases compute the mapping
to BEHAVIOR THAT THE INPUT DOES NOT SPECIFY.
No, that is your position, because you have chosen to just ignore the definitoins, and stupidly presume you can look at some input that doesn't match the problem given.
For the Halting Problem, or the Termination analysis problem, the "behavior of the input" is *DEFINED* to be the behavior of the program the input represent when run.
Note, this also means that the input does need to be the representation of a program, which means it needs to include all the code used by it (and everything it calls), something you try your hardest to ignore.
No one can possibly provide any correct reasoning
why HHH must do this because no such correct
reasoning exists. On this issue it is merely
THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT I MEMORIZED IT.
Like, it is the DEFINITION?
of course, that is something too esoteric for you to understand, you think we must lie about what we are doing, since that is all you know how to do.
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met