Sujet : Re: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH(DDD) rejects input DDD
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Oct 2024, 00:14:32
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <3cbba2b3005ff5addae239ff5aeb886cbc6cc08e@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/7/24 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/7/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/7/24 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
*Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH(DDD) rejects input DDD*
HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.
>
Except their can't be a non-terminating pattern in DDD if that happens, as DDD is terminating.
>
*HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD*
>
>
And is wrong for doing so, as HHH by return PROVES that DDD will terminate.
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions.
One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
finite string such that
>
And, for the PROGRAM DDD, must include the FULL decription of the HHH that it calls.
>
Thus, if that is all of the input, you are just proving that you have been lying about working on the Halting problem, as your input ISN'T a sufficient representation of the input.
>
Thus, your are whole problem is on a false basis.
>
>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns.
>
No, the Emulation of DDD by each corresponding HHH doesn't reach a final state, but the actual program DDD will return if the HHH it calls aborts it simulation are returns 0.
>
The finite string input to HHH specifies non-halting behavior.
This is simply over your head.
Nope, not if it is actually the description of the program DDD that calls that HHH, since that program halts.
Not because you are not intelligent or educated enough to understand it.
It is because you are so sure that I must be wrong that all of your thinking has been boxed in by this false assumption.
Your problem is you just don't understand the meaning of the words you use, and thus you CHANGE their meaning, which is just a form of lying.
You have been instructed in the proper meaning, but ignore it, that means that you have just proven that
PPPP EEEEE TTTTT EEEEE RRRR
P P E T E R R
P P E T E R R
PPPP EEEEE T EEEEE RRRR
P E T E R R
P E T E R R
P EEEEE T EEEEE R R
OOO L CCC OOO TTTTT TTTTT
O O L C C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C C O O T T
OOO LLLLL CCC OOO T T
L IIIII EEEEE SSS
L I E S S
L I E S
L I EEEEE SSS
L I E S
L I E S S
LLLLL IIIII EEEEE SSS
AND THINKS THAT IS JUST OK.