Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 6/17/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 11:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/17/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/17/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 17.jun.2024 om 05:33 schreef olcott:

To understand this analysis requires a sufficient knowledge of
the C programming language and what an x86 emulator does.
>
Unless every single detail is made 100% explicit false assumptions
always slip though the cracks. This is why it must be examined at
the C level before it is examined at the Turing Machine level.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
   return;
}
>
int main()
{
   H0(Infinite_Loop);
   H0(Infinite_Recursion);
   H0(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when H0
emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and
DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
normally.
>
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-
halting.
>

>
For Infinite_Loop and Infinite_Recursion that might be true, because there the simulator processes the whole input.
>
The H0 case is very different. For H0 there is indeed a false assumption, as you mentioned. Here H0 needs to simulate itself, but the simulation is never able to reach the final state of the simulated self. The abort is always one cycle too early, so that the simulating H0 misses the abort. Therefore this results in a false negative.
(Note that H0 should process its input, which includes the H0 that aborts, not a non-input with an H that does not abort.)
>
This results in a impossible dilemma for the programmer. It he creates a H that does not abort, it will not terminate.

>
*Therefore what I said is correct*
When every input that must be aborted is construed as non-halting
then the input to H0(DDD) is correctly construed as non-halting.

>
In other words, if you allow yourself to LIE, you can claim the wrong answer is right.
>
Since your "Needing to abort" is NOT the same as halting, all you are doing is admitting that your whole logic system is based on the principle that LIES ARE OK.
>

>
"Needing to abort" <is> the same as a NOT halting input.
You are simply too ignorant to understand this.
>

>
Nope, not if you are comparing DIFFERENT version of the input.
>

It is ALWAYS the exact same sequence of bytes.

>
But if it doesn't include the bytes of H,

>
It is like we know that N > 50 and you can't
see that this also means N > 40.
>

>
Nope.
>
How do you simulate something you do not have?
>
That is like says when the requirement is for N > 50 that you claim 1 is ok, because 50 can be 5*0 just like xy is x*y.
>
Again, how can you claim a "Correct Simulation" by the exact definition of the x86 instruction set, when you omit the call H instruction, and then "jump" to an addres that was never jumped to at any point later in the program.
>

>
You just aren't bright enough to see simple truths that
every programmer can see.
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by any H0 cannot possibly halt.
That this truth is so simple lead me to believe that
you were lying about it instead of ordinary cluelessness.
>
>

>
But the question isn't DDD correctly simulated by H0, but does DDD itself, when run halt.
>

 The proof that you are wrong is over your head.

That is just a lying Dodge.
An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by claiming the other couldn't understand it.
The problem, as you have demonstrated, is that youj actually don't even know the BASICS of the field, so clearly can't have grasps of things above all others.

 

You have been stuck on the wrong question for ages, because you just belive your own lies, and think you are allowed to change the definitions of terms.
>

No that is not it. I have known the truth for two
decades and am just now expressing it in words.

Nope, you have lied to yourself about it for two decades, but can't actually show it other, because it isn't true.
If you had a fundamental flaw that actually broke the system, you could just show it.

 If the halting problem is correct then truth itself
is broken. Since truth itself cannot be broken then
the halting problem cannot be correct.

No, truth as YOU think of it is broken, because your idea of Truth is just wrong.
It isn't that everyone else is wrong, it is YOU are wrong, but are too bulheaded to accept it.

 This is all anchored in the details of truthmaker
maximalism.

Which, as we just showed, you don't understand.
Yes, your problem is YOU, and your refusal to actually look at what is being shown to you.
You are worse than the election deniers that you put down.

 

Do that just makes you a LIAR, and so that is what you are.
>

 *Calling me a liar may get you sent to actual Hell*

Nope, since it is a truth, it isn't a lie.
Truth seems to be something beyound your understanding since you have lied to yourself so long.

 That you have a religious conviction that I am incorrect
is a bias that prevents you from trying to actually
understand what I am saying.

It isn't a "religious" conviction, but a knowledge of how logic actually works.

 Perhaps you are too ignorant to understand that bias
is a systematic error.
 

Nope. YOU are just stuck in YOUR bias, as proven by your clearly wrong assertions.
If you don't see how claiming that an answer that is wrong by definition is right is illogical, you are just beyound hope.