Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.

>
Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.

 This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation is not correct.

 

It is relevant that it *does* abort. That is relevant when determining whether it is correct.
>

>
When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
termination analyzer HHH is correct to reject these inputs as
non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.

>
Therefore, whether or not it must abort, is incorrect criteria. The fact that it *does* abort (and aborts too early to see correctly the behaviour) shows that the simulation is incorrect.
>

>
Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior
that their finite string input specifies thus HHH must report
that DDD correctly emulated by HHH remains stuck in recursive
simulation.

>
It is not stuck in recursive simulation. We are speaking about an HHH that *does* abort after two cycles. So, not stuck, the simulation is only aborted too soon.
Dreaming of another HHH that got stuck because it does not abort is irrelevant, because this HHH *does* abort.
>

>
Everyone else seems to be flat out dishonest or totally ignorant.
At least one of my reviewers does not seem to understand that
infinite recursion does not halt.
>

>
It is dishonest to claim that two equals infinite.
Two cycles of recursive simulation is not equal to an infinite recursion.
You don't seem to understand such simple facts.
>