Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/20/2024 5:48 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:25:31 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/19/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/19/24 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/19/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/19/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/19/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/19/24 9:00 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/19/2024 3:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2024 om 18:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2024 om 17:33 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2024 10:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Why does H0 NEED to be able to simulate its input?

Yeah, why? That just adds a contradictory requirement. Not that it were
possible otherwise.

Why do you want to decide halting by incomplete simulation?

Decider must compute the mapping from their finite string input to
the actual behavior that this finite string specifies.

If possible.

Which it is not.

They are not free to imagine the behavior that the authors of
textbooks expect.

Nor crackpots.

The finite string input does not communicate the behavior that the
textbook authors expect it to communicate.

Bullshit. Your neither-decider-nor-simulator just can't handle it.
The direct execution of DDD is the measure of things. A simulation must
behave identically. Of course you may be able to do analysis on whether
it halts, but that's different. Simulation is dumb.

Your "simulator" is wrong.

The finite string certainly DOES communicate what is needed to
determine the behavior, or it wasn't a correct representation.

There is no sequence of truth preserving operations from the finite
string machine code of DDD that can correctly ignore the pathological
relationship between H0 and DDD as an aspect of the behavior that this
finite string specifies.

What do you mean with "ignore the relationship"?

Your H0 can not derive the behaviour of DDD, because it contradicts its
own result.

We have a proof.

You have dogmatic false assumptions.

Go ahead, disprove Turing.

It is an verified fact that the input to H(D,D) cannot be mapped to the
behavior of D(D).

Yes, H can not decide/simulate D(D). G can that exact D constructed
on H, but not the E which calls G.

When I say "mapped" I don't mean look something up in Google maps.

Cut the insults.

--
Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik
sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim