Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

On 5/12/2025 8:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 7:36 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 7:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/12/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/12/2025 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Simulating Termination analyzers cannot possibly report
on the actual behavior of non-terminating inputs
because this would cause themselves to never terminate.
>
They must always hypothesize what the behavior of the
input would be if they themselves never aborted.
>

>
False.  They must always hypothesize what the behavior of algorithm described by the input would be if it was executed directly, as per the requirements:
>

>
Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
that a simulating termination analyzer should
ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
input actually specifies.

>
There is no requirement that building a termination analyzer, simulating or otherwise, is possible.  In fact, it has proved to not be possible by Linz and others, which you have *explicitly* agreed with.
>

>
In other words you have no such actual reasoning.

>
The reasoning is that there is no requirement that building a termination analyzer is possible.

>
So you have no actual reasoning that addresses my
actual point.
>
 >>>> Show the actual reasoning of how it makes sense
 >>>> that a simulating termination analyzer should
 >>>> ignore the behavior (to its own peril) that the
 >>>> input actually specifies.
>

 It makes sense because that's what's required to tell me if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly.
 

Exactly what actual reasoning shows that this
is superior to reporting on the behavior that
its input actual specifies?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer