Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal

On 7/28/2024 3:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-27 13:55:56 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-24 13:38:08 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/24/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-23 14:41:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/23/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-22 15:05:41 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/22/2024 6:05 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-20 15:28:31 +0000, olcott said:
>

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   DDD();
}
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt
this is a design requirement.

>
For a partial analyzer or deciders this is not always required.
>

>
*You can't even get my words correctly*
A termination analyzer must report on the behavior of at least
one input for all of the inputs of this one input. This is
met when a termination analyzer analyzes an input having no inputs.
>
A partial halt decider must correctly determine the halt status
of at least one input and its specific input (if any).
>
HHH is both a partial halt decider and a termination analyzer
for DDD and a few other inputs having no input.
>

(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either
aborts the simulation of its input or not.

>
This must be interpreted to mean that a simulating termination analyzer
may abort its simulation for some simulated abort and simulate others
to the termination.
>

>
I am talking about hypothetical possible ways that HHH could be encoded.
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
>

(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort
the simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.

>
The case is not very hypothetical. Given the HHH you already have,
it is fairly easy to construct the "hypothetical" HHH and see what
it actually does.
>

>
(a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
(b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
>

This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must
abort the simulation of its input.

>
The violation simply means that the "hypothetical" HHH is not a
termination analyzer of partial halt decider in sense (a). What
it "must" be or do depends on the requirements.
>

Therefore (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect according to the
design requirements for HHH that it must halt.
>
It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted
is a non-halting input.

>
No, it is not. The "must" and "non-halting" belong to different worlds.
The word "must" blongs to requirements. The word "non-halting" is a
feature of a program. They are unrelated, so one cannot be inferred
from the other.
>

>
When-so-ever there are two hypothetical possible way to encode
a simulating halt decider for a specific input
(a) one aborts its simulation of DDD
(b) never aborts its simulation of DDD

>
Does the simulator that simulates the beginning and end of the
simulated computation but skips a part in ghe middle belong to
class (a) or class (b)?
>

>
That is off topic. I am only referring to  a sequence of
1 to N x86 machine language instructions simulated according
to the x86 semantic meaning of these instructions.

>
No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.

>
In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
input x86 machine code.

>
You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
not saying what you falsely claim.
>

>
I am not lying I am paraphrasing so that we can come to a mutual
understanding.

 It is lying to paraphrase so that the original meaning is not preserved.
 

I make my point mere clearly here:
[Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see...]
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer