Re: Hypothetical possibilities

On 7/20/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 9:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:

>

(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
a design requirement.
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either aborts the
simulation of its input or not.
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.
This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must abort
the simulation of its input.

You missed a couple details:
A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
simulator halt on their own.
>

And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt
of its own.

So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?

Pretty much.

It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
need to.

No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist aborts
its simulation.

I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>

>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
possibly reach its own return instruction.
>

>
Wrong.
>

>
You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:

>
Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>

>

It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point,

>

but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD

>
Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.

>
Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, so can not "Kill" it.
>

>
So you are trying to get away with the lie
that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>

>
No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.

>
So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
>

>
No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues,

>
We are talking about real hardware here not figments
of your imagination.
>

>
No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which never stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a piece of software running on it, and what it does can't affect the behavior of the actual CPU running the program.
>
>

When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input
this emulated input immediately stops running.
>

>
Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the facts.
>
It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can not understand it.
>
The SIMULATION is an observation of the program,

>
Not at all. It is the same as a finite string of static data
interpreted by an interpreter. It is merely data within the
process of the x86 emulator. When the emulator stops emulating
it immediately stops.
>

>
In other words, you have just been lying for years about doing the Halting problem, whose input is the reperesentation of the program to be decided.
>
No program to be decided on, no program to be emulated.
>

 I was shocked to find out that you really believed that a static
finite string could keep running after its x86 emulator stopped
emulating it.
 I thought that you understood that when an interpreter stops interpreting its input source-code the the interpreted program
would stop.
 

I guess I need to be shocked that you so poorly understand the problem you are working on, but I suppose I am not because you have shown yourself to be really that stupid. Simulation is ALWAYS about look at the behavior of something represented, and it is the actual behavior of that which is the "correct" answer. Yes, the SIMULAITON stops, but the represented program does not. That is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of simulation, that seems to be just beyond you mental ability, it seems becuase that is just too abstract for you.
The problem was NEVER about the simulation done by the decider, and by your admitting that is what you are actually defining what you are doing you have defined you way out of anything to do with the problem, and demonstrated that you have just wasted all these years.
You used to know that the Halting Problem was about the behavior of a program, you just tried to double talk to claim that a wrong answer could be right. Now that you have redefined what you are doing to not involve a representation of the program to decide on, your decider has lost all claim to being a Halt Decider, and your work is just a pile of POOP.
It is clear that you knowledge of what Computation Theory actually is talking about is minimal, if it is even positive in value, you may well have so many more errors that things right that a "knowledge rating" would give you a negative score, that blind guessing would be more accurate.
You also have shown a similar ineptitude on logic which you clearly don't understand. Too bad you staked your life goals on things you decided not to study. That was really a very bad move.