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

Am Mon, 12 May 2025 20:06:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

Those are the same, if the simulator is actually correct. What they
can't do is report on if the *input* never aborted.

 >>>> 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?

Because we are running the input directly. Imagine we have some service
where people can upload programs. We only want to accept those that
terminate. DDD would be allowed, even though HHH thinks it's not.
That it *would* make the *checking* program not terminate is a different
matter, and it actually doesn't, because HHH aborts.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.