Re: Proving the: Simulating termination analyzer Principle

On 4/9/2025 6:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 4/9/2025 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/9/2025 1:00 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 4/5/2025 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/5/2025 7:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

If it is claimed always to give the right answer, it becomes possible (as shown above in the chevrons) to write a program for which it will not be able to work out the right answer - reductio ad absurdum.
>
Your 'principle' doesn't matter a jot.
>

>
Except that it gives the correct
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
answer for the Halting Problems impossible input.
The computer science of termination analyzers might agree.
>

>
is this pseudo-code akin to your decider?
>
bool
halts()
{
     return (rand_normal() < .5f);
}
>
?
>

>
Not at all it has been fully operational software for
about three years:
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
>
Some version of HHH has been able to return the correct
halt status for some version of DD for about three years.
HHH is always correct for inputs in its domain.
>

 Is your decider 100% correct for any "black box" program?

Of course not and I never claimed any such thing.
Are you trolling me? It seems that your dialogue
is grossly insincere.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer