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

On 7/6/2025 5:16 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 

You lie.  You don't have a proof.  Many people in this group have pointed
out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you
just ignore.  The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).

 

I have addressed ....

 Meaningless pompous word.
 

.... all of those details that you make sure to ignore so that you can
baselessly claim that I am wrong.

 I vaguely remember rolling my eyes at your hopeless lack of
understanding.  It was like watching a 7 year old trying to do calculus.
The basic understanding was simply not there.  Years later, it's still
not there.
 And yes, you are wrong.  The proofs of the halting theorem which involve
constructing programs which purported halting deciders cannot decide
correctly are correct.
 

Yet you cannot point to even one mistake because there are none.

There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*

 That's so sloppily worded, it could mean almost anything.
 

The standard halting problem proof cannot even be constructed.
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
   HHH(DD); // DD cannot do the opposite of HHH
   DD();    // The caller of HHH(DD) is not its input
}

No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
domain of every halt decider.

 And that, too.
 

*Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
*of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*

 And that makes your hat trick.
 

Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
inputs specify.

 And a fourth.  There's some semblance of truth in there, but it's very
confused.
 

It is not at all confused. I know exactly what it means.

Sloppy wording is your technique to get people to go down to your level
of discussion.  That involves many posts trying just to tie you down to
specific word meanings, and is very tiresome and unrewarding.  I decline
to get involved any further.
 

*Yet as I claimed you found no actual mistake*
Let me tell you the punchline so that you can
see why I said those things.
Because directly executed Turing machines cannot
possibly be inputs to Turing machine deciders this
makes them outside of the domain of these deciders.
When a partial halt decider is required to report
on the direct execution of a machine this requirement
is bogus.
This means that the behavior of DD() is none of the damn
business of HHH, thus does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
HHH(DD) does correctly detect that DD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics pf the C programming language
cannot possibly reach its own "return"statement final
halt state.
*If you disagree this only proves that you do not understand*
Any mindless idiot can disagree. Showing an error and proving
that it is an actual mistake requires much more than this.

[ .... ]
 

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer