Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle

On 4/5/2025 5:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/5/2025 6:18 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 05/04/2025 22:31, dbush wrote:

On 4/5/2025 5:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/5/2025 4:15 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/5/2025 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input that
would otherwise prevent its own termination.
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}

>
Except when doing so would change the input, as is the case with HHH and DDD.
>
Changing the input is not allowed.

>
You may disagree that the above definition
of simulating termination analyzer is correct.
>
It is self-evident that HHH must stop simulating
DDD to prevent its own non-termination.
>

>
Changing the input is not allowed.

>
You're right, but it doesn't matter very much as long as terminates() *always* gets the answer right for any arbitrary program tape and any data tape. Mr Olcott's fails to do that.
>

 Of course you're correct. His criteria is basically what happens if you replace the code of X with a pure simulator and run X(Y) for some Y.
 

Everyone else seems to think that the correct way
to handle a pathological relationship between an
input and a termination analyzer is to simply ignore
the differences that this makes. THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT !!!
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer