Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 6/18/24 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/18/2024 11:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-17 03:33:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
The subject line is incorrect. The OP of "Simulating termination analyzers
for dummies" should tell what a "simulating termination analyzer" is.
The OP of this thread does not.
>

 I state the prerequisites if you don't have them
then you cannot understand. If you have them then
what I say is self-evidently true.
 

Since you fail to have them, so you can't talk about it either.
An aborted simulation never, by itself, tells us about the halting behavior of the machine simulated.
 From Infinite_Loop, and Infinite_Recursion, there are valid induction arguements that can be used to prove tha the actual behavior of the machines is non-halting.
That doesn't work for DDD, as the PROGRAM DDD includes the code for H0, and thus the valid induction proof can't change it. Thus when you look farther, we see that H1, which simulate DDD calling H0 far enogh to see H0 make it decision, see that it will halt.
Your problem is you don't understand what a "program" is, so you don't understand what the input actually needs to be.
Thus, your FAIL and by continuing to repeat the error after it being pointed out, it turns into a LIE>