Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 6/18/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2024 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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.
I have always only wanted what the actual truth really is.

Your systematic error of bias has prevented you from paying
enough attention to see this true, or maybe you simply are
not bright enough, or some of both.

Nope, YOU are just full of errors because you refuse to look at the truth.
If the problem was my bias, then you could lay out a simple detailed PROOF (actual, not just rhetoric) of your point.
But you only logic seems to be that the world must be wrong because it doesn't believe in your ideas.
Nope, YOU are the one with "Bias" and inability to see the truth.

 

An ad-hominen that tries to avoid showing that you have nothing by claiming the other couldn't understand it.
>

I calls em as I see em.

Yep, and since you have shown yourself unable to see logic, what you see is just blindness.
Your logic is based on that you are "allowed" to lie about what the problem is because you don't like the answer that the DEFINED problem gives.

 

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.
>

 It is not at all that I don't know these things.
It is that I professor Hehner and professor Stoddart
pay enough attention to see that there is something
wrong with the halting problem. Professor Hehner said
that I could quote him as agreeing to those exact same
words as they apply to himself.

Again, the BLIND leading the BLIND.

 

>
>

>

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 it was merely me lying to myself then there would not be
two PhD computer science professors that agree with me that
there is something wrong with the halting problem.

No, you just found a couple of other people who believe the same lies.

 

If you had a fundamental flaw that actually broke the system, you could just show it.
>

 I and two PhD computer science professors did show yet you are
so convinced that they are wrong that you refuse to pay attention.

But me and THOUSANDS of computer science professionals know you are just wrong.
The fact that you even try to rebute with an appeal to authority,

 

>
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.
>

 Actually you are the one person in the world that understands
that it is correct.
 We can verify that expressions of language that are {true on the
basis of their meaning} are true on the basis of a sequence of
truth preserving operations from their meaning to this expression.

But that requires accepting the definitions of things, which you don't
Once definitions are just suggestions, your whole thoery falls apart.

 

It isn't that everyone else is wrong, it is YOU are wrong, but are too bulheaded to accept it.
>

Everyone else is beguiled by the dogma and actively denigrates
those that know the truth to the extent of ruining their careers.

But in system built by autthority, Dogma is correct.

 History of my Problems with the Halting Problem
2013 August 14, 2014 July 6, 2022 April 15
Eric C.R. (Rick) Hehner
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHPhistory.pdf

Who shows he doesn't understand the basics of the field.

 

>
This is all anchored in the details of truthmaker
maximalism.

>
Which, as we just showed, you don't understand.
>

 Actually you understand it better than most experts in the field.
The clueless ones believe that this sentence is a truth without
a truthmaker: "This sentence has no truthmaker."

Nope, I don't think you understand what most people would think of that sentence.

 

Yes, your problem is YOU, and your refusal to actually look at what is being shown to you.
>

I am merely rejecting incorrect dogma. It is like you keep
explaining to me that 2 + 3 does not equal 5, everyone
"knows" that it equals 17.3.

But the "Dogma" isn't "Incorrect", it IS the definition.
You are welcome to try to show an actual problem with it, but first you need to understadn what the "Dogma" actually means, which seems beyound your understanding.

 

You are worse than the election deniers that you put down.
>

Yet I have two PhD computer science professors that agree with me.

And thousands who disagree, so YOU LOSE THE VOTE.
Just like all the election deniers. But there vote was closer.

 

>

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.
>

 Presuming yourself to be infallible may be blaspheming
the Holy Spirit. I never made the mistake of presuming
myself to be infallible.

I know it is the truth, because I know the defitions.
IF someone claimed that 2 + 3 was 17 in normal math, I could very confidently claim they were incorrect.
That isn't a test of "infallibilty".
YOU claiming you are correct, is just based on you prsuming that you are allowed to re-write the rules, which isn't allowed.

 

Truth seems to be something beyound your understanding since you have lied to yourself so long.
>

Two PhD computer science professors agree with me.

And thousands disagree, so you lost the election.
By more than the election deniers.

 

>
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.
>

Logic is not the measure of truth. Classical and Symbolic
logic has flaws. Truth preserving operations from expressions
stipulated to be true corrects all of the errors of logic.

More of your double-talk.
PROVE your statement.

 

>
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.
>

You did not indicate that you have any idea what bias it.

Why should i have, I am not going to throw my pearls to the swine.

 

If you don't see how claiming that an answer that is wrong by definition is right is illogical, you are just beyound hope.
>

 When definitions derive incoherence that we know that
they are incorrect.
 

Then try to actually SHOW the incoherence.
You tried that once, and FAILED, but decided you ideas must be correct, so you accepted them without actually proving them.
THAT IS YOUR BIAS.
AND IGNORANCE.