Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH

On 2/26/25 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact that
HHH emulates this DD.

On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.

Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the one
influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.

No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls
that simulator.
>

 In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers
to get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.
 

No, we are requiring that they get the right answer.
If they can't, they might not exists.
This is one of your fundamental flaws, you assume if you make up an idea, it must be doable, but that isn't true.
A Simulating Termination Analyzer might be able to get the answer for MANY cases, we just show that there is one it can't get right.
Note, you also, in your attempt to get away from the some of the issue you find with a "Halt Decider" by using the term "Termination Analyser", but neglected to not that this term actually does as a formal definition, that being of a program to determine if the given program will halt for ALL inputs, and as such, termination analyzing isn't really suited to solution by pure simulation, since you need to be looking at EVERY POSSIBLE INPUT. For the case of a program that has no input, they become the same, but in general, you put yourself into a worse situation.
Of course, then you run into the fact that you think halting/termination can be based on the potentially partial simulation/emulation of the program, when it is *ONLY* defined in terms of the behavior of the direct execution of the program, and then auxilarly defined to be determinable by things provable to be identical to it.
THus, your claim that the simulation by HHH differs for the direct execution because of being a "different context" just means that however you try to define "simulation by HHH", it can't be a suitable method to define if the input halts/terminates.
Of course, it all boils down to the fact that you are nothing but a pathological liar, who is totally ignorant of what he is talking about and too stupid to recognize that fact, so everything you say is just baseless.