Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 5/05/24 16:38, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-04 13:56:27 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/4/2024 4:47 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-03 11:55:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/3/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-02 18:35:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/2/2024 4:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/30/24 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 3:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 29.apr.2024 om 21:04 schreef olcott:

>
[ .... ]
>

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer} to
the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we define halting
otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as halting.

>
>

Why?

>

That doesn't mean the machine reached a final state.

>
>

Alan seems to believe that a final state is whatever state that an
aborted simulation ends up in.

>
Only through your twisted reasoning.  For your information, I hold to the
standard definition of final state, i.e. one which has no state following
it.  An aborted simulation is in some state, and that state is a final
one, since there is none following it.
>

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination
isn't a final state.

>

Only if you try to define something that is NOT related to Halting, do
you get into that issue.

>

"The all new ideas are wrong" assessment.
Simulating termination analyzers <are> related to halting.

>
Except you cannot define what such a thing is, and that relationship is
anything but clear.

>
When a simulating termination analyzer matches one of three
non-halting behavior patterns
(a) Simple Infinite loop
(b) Simple Infinite Recursion
(c) Simple Recursive Simulation

>
Simple recursive simulation is not a non-halting behaviour
if the recursion is not infinite.

>
In other words the only way that we can tell that an infinite
loop never halts is to simulate it until the end of time?

>
The phrase "in other words" is not correct here as it means that
what follows means the same as what precedes, and that is not
true here.
>
For same loops the only wha to detect non-termination may be
to simulate to infinity but they can be considered exluded by
the term "simple" in (a).
>

There are repeating state non-halting behavior patterns
that can be recognized. These are three more functions
where H derives the correct halt status:
>
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}

>
Per (b) that is non-halting and indeed it is (though the
execution may crash for "out of memeory").
>

>
It is not actually infinite though because H recognizes the non-halting
behavior pattern, aborts the simulation and reports non-halting.

>
The recursion is infinite. The simulation by H is incomplete and finite.
>

 Do you understand that it is ridiculously stupid for a simulating
termination analyzer to simulate a non-terminating input forever?

I'm back!
Yes, we understand that. Do you understand that since all simulating termination analyzers must simulate their non-terminating input forever, simulating termination analyzers do not always terminate?
Facts don't care if you think they're stupid. I think entropy is stupid. Tough shit.

No it is not. A simulating termination analyzer must get at least one
non-terminating input correctly and one terminating input correctly.
You couldn't even tell that ordinary factorial halts?

According to this definition, simulating termination analyzers do not exist.
I can prove that circles have 90-degree corners:
1. Consider a square circle.
2. It has 90-degree corners because it's a square.