Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 11:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/30/2024 10:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ .... ]

You are thus mistaken in believing "abnormal" termination isn't a
final state.

Again, we have no reply from you to this important point.  You've
failed to address any of the points I made, presumably because you
can't.

When we add the brand new idea of {simulating termination analyzer}
....

It is most unlikely to be "brand new", and even if it were, it would
most likely be useless and inconsequential.  But since you fail to
define it, we can only judge it by the reputation of its creator.

.... to the existing idea of TM's then we must be careful how we
define halting otherwise every infinite loop will be construed as
halting.

Complete Balderdash.  Define your "simulating termination analyzer",
or stop wasting people's time by talking about it.

int H(ptr x, ptr y); // ptr is pointer to int function

01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }

Is that it?  Is that tired old piece of copy and paste supposed to be a
mathematical definition?  It doesn't look like one to me.

(a) It is a verified fact that D(D) simulated by H cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of D(D) simulated by H whether H
aborts its simulation or not.

That's a barefaced lie.  Who has done such "verification", how, and when,
and where on this newsgroup did he post his results?  I suggest that no
such verification has ever taken place.

For a start, quite trivially, if H(x, x) in Line 03 returns 0, the code
proceeds to Line 06, where that 0 is returned to its caller, possibly
main.

Before we can get into the computer science of a simulating
termination analyzer we must first have mutual agreement on
the software engineering of it.

That seems a crazy backward way to proceed.  First, we should check that
the mathematics of a "simulating termination analyzer" (whatever that
might be) are correct, and only then proceed to the practical
implementation of one.

ONLY when we mutually agree on the (a) point can we proceed to
the next point.

The (a) point is a falsehood, as pointed out above, so it is impossible
to agree with it in good faith.

If we don't do it this way then everyone simply leaps to the conclusion
that I must be wrong without ever fully understanding what I am saying.

No, people conclude that you are wrong because you _are_ wrong.  You are
wrong because you hold that robustly proven mathematical theorems are
false.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).