Re: How do simulating termination analyzers work? ---Truth Maker Maximalism FULL_TRACE

On 7/16/2025 10:42 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 16 Jul 2025 10:18:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/15/2025 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/15/25 7:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 07:42:56 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

Why do YOU think you can?
Your above "Input" can be simulated past the instruction at
0000219A because we lack the data of what is next.
Your problem is you started with the lie to yourself that you could
change the rules, and thus made yourself into a pathological liar
that has just lost the rules of the game.
In this case, your problem is you tried to redefine what
non-halting means, becuase your mind just can't handle the actual
definition, and some of its consequences. Partial emulations, by
themselves, NEVER define a program to be non-halting, only complete
execution or complete simulation. PERIOD.

>
No. Partial simulation is a perfectly valid approach for a partial
decider.

>
Yes, but not as the thing that defines that an input is non-halting.
You need to use the partial simulation to actually prove that the
full correct simulation of that input would not halt. And that input
doesn't change to use that correct simulator, it still calls the
partial simulator as that is what is in the input.
>

Been doing that for three years and you keep dishonestly pretending
that you don't see this.

 
No, the full, i.e. unaborted simulation of DDD by any pure simulator
would halt.
 

Not when DDD calls this pure simulator.