Re: Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly rejects input DDD

On 10/11/24 8:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/11/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/10/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 6:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/9/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/9/24 7:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/9/2024 1:08 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 10/8/2024 6:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:

... after a short break.
>
     Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter? You
must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
that Peter is running rings around you.
>
     Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one sensible
is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly what you
are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more than one
side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
fact, trying to help.

>
And this approach has been tried many times. It makes no more progress than the ones you are criticizing. Just assume the regulars are lonesome, very lonesome and USENET keeps everybody off the deserted streets at night.

>
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.

>
But fails, because you provided it with a proven incorrect pattern
>

>
HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

>
Which isn't a correct analysis (but of course, that is just what you do)
>
Since we know that HHH(DDD) returns 0, it can not be a non- terminating behaivor, but that claim is just a lie.
>

One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
finite string x86 machine language of DDD such that
>

>
Right, one can not ignore the fact that HHH(DDD) is determined to return 0.
>

DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns

>
More lies. It has been determined that EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) that returns 0 will halt.
>
The DDDs that don't return are the ones that call an HHH that never returns an answer.
>

>
*Your weasel words are in incorrect paraphrase of this*

>
WHAT PARAPHARSE.
>

>
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns

>
No, that means the behavior of the code of DDD when directly executed. or youy are lying about working on the Halting Problem.
>

>
It seems to me that you just said that:
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
<is not>
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
>

>
No, (the behavior of ddd) [that was] emulated by HHH is a different sentence then
>
the behavior (of DDD) [by] emulation by HHH
>

 That merely seem grammatically incorrect.
In any case I am only taking about the behavior of DDD
emulated by HHH.

If you mean about the behavior seen in the emulation of DDD by HHH, that just is an admission that it is *YOU* working on the strawman, as the ONLY correct criteria for Halting/Termination is the behavior of the actual program, or things proven to be identical to it.
The fact that DDD when run halts, just shows that is it just a blantant (and stupid) lie to claim the HHH was "correct" to say it doesn't

 

Instead you seemed to have said that:
the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
is the behavior of DDD when directly executed.

>
(The behavior of DDD) is the behavior of DDD directly executed.
>

 I am only talking about the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH.
That <is> the premise to my deduction.

And if by that you mean the behavior of the emulation of DDD by HHH, then you are shown to be LYING about the conclusion, since "Non-Termination" is a property of the program it talking about.

 When you change the premise to my deduction as the basis of
your rebuttal that <is> the strawman error.

Right, and since the DEFINITION of the term you are using in the conclusion is based on a DIFFERENT property than your premise, your arguement is shown to be just a strawman with incorrect logic.

 A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the
informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the
one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or
acknowledging the distinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Right, so looking at a partial emulation which doesn't reach the end, can NOT be a stand in for the behavior of the program DDD, since they differ, and thus your use of it is just a strawman, which appears to be a DELIBERATE lie.

 

The emulated by HHH, just specifies WHICH DDD was look at.
>
The sentence, in the context of Computation Theory and the Halting Problem, does not allow the "emulation" to modify behavior (which wasn't in your original sentence to begin with) as which behavior is defined by the technical definiitions of the field, something you have CHOSEN to no learn, thus leading you into self-inflicted stupidity.
>

 No matter what anyone anywhere says
THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT.
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer
then each DDD emulated by any HHH that it calls never returns.

The emulation by HHH never reaches the return, but that does NOT man you can say that DDD was non-terminating, so you can not claim that HHH was correct to say it is.

 You can legitimately say that is not that way that this
is typically done in the theory of computation.
 

>
Is this what you mean?
>

>
You are just proving you are trying to use an equivocation.

 I am not using equivocation. You are changing the premise
to my reasoning and then applying the strawman fallacy.
 

No, you *ARE* using equivocation, as you are on one hand talking about the behavior of a partial emulation of DDD, and on the other making a claim about the behavior of the actual program DDD.
THAT IS EQUIVOCATION
And just proves that you are nothing but a stupid blatant liar.
In this case, I think you have lost the pathological excuse, as you are trying to make the argument about why you are right, but just ignoring the actual definition, likely because you have INTENTIONALLY made yourself IGNORANT of them.
Sorry, you have just put your reputation six feet under, and it is likely never going to be able to come back.