1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: I have always been incorrect about emulating termination analyzers

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Oct 20 17:41:46 2024
    On 10/20/24 4:54 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/20/2024 2:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/20/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/20/2024 6:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/19/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 10/19/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/19/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:

    You are directly contradicting the verified fact that DDD
    emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
    cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and halt.


    But that isn't what the question being asked

    Sure it is. You are just in psychological denial as proven by
    the fact that all attempted rebuttals (yours and anyone else's)
    to the following words have been baseless.

    Does the input DDD to HHH specify a halting computation?

    Which it isn't, but is a subtle change of the actual question.

    The actual question (somewhat informally stated, but from the source
    you like to use) says:

    In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
    determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
    an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to
    run forever.


    That is the problem. Because it is too informally stated
    it can be misunderstood. No one ever intended for any
    termination analyzer to ever report on anything besides
    the behavior that its input actually specifies.

    What is "informal" about the actual problem.

    The informality is that it comes from a non-academic source, so
    doesn't use the formal terminology, which you just wouldn't understand.

    What is to be misunderstood?

    Given that you start with a program, which is defined as the fully
    detailed set of deterministic steps that are to be performed, and that
    such a program, will do exactly one behavior for any given input given
    to it, says that there is, BY DEFINITIOH a unique and specific answer
    that the analysize must give to be correct.

    The requirement says that the user needs to, by the rules defined by
    the analyszer, describe that program, and if the analyzer is going to
    be able to qualify, must define at least one way (but could be
    multiple) of creating the proper description of that input program,
    and that an given input that meets that requirement will exactly
    represent only a singe equivalence set of programs (an equivalence set
    of programs is a set of programs that all members always produce the
    same output results for every possible input). Thus, there must exist
    a unique mapping from each input to such an equivalence set to a
    correct answer.

    Thus, it is THAT BEHAVIOR, the behavior of the full program that *IS*
    the behavior that its input actually specifies.

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?


    Now, this does point out that you claim of what could be the "finite-
    string input" for you HHH, can't possible be such a correct input,


    So, DDD is the COMPUTER PROGRAM to be decided on,

    No not at all. When DDD is directly executed it specifies a
    different sequence of configurations than when DDD is emulated
    by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.

    And what step actually correctly emulated created the first difference
    in sequence?

    You have been asked this many times, and just fail to answer, because
    your claim has just been proven to be a *LIE*, so of course you can't
    find a proof for it,


    On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    ... PO really /has/ an H (it's trivial to do for this one case)
    that correctly determines that P(P) *would* never stop running
    *unless* aborted.

    But that is just admitting that your HHH isn't answering the HALTING
    PROBLEM, but the POOP problem, which has a different domain


    HHH must answer about the actual behavior of its input.

    Which is, BY DEFINITION for a Halt Decider or Termination Analyzer, the behavior of the actual program the input descirbes, or equivalently, the behavior of a COMPLETE and correct emualation of the input.

    Since the HHH that this DDD calls returns 0, that means this DDD halts.

    This behavior <is> correctly measured by DDD emulated
    by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.


    Only if HHH does a COMPLETE emiulation, which it doesn't, so you claim
    is just a lie.

    So, all you are doing is proving that you are just a stupid liar that
    doesn't know what he is talking about, and lies via equivocatin.

    You just don't know the basic meaning of the terms you are using, and
    just refusing to learn them when told, because you prefer to believe the
    lies you brainwashed yourself with, rather than facts.

    That puts you in the exact same camp as the election deniers and climate
    change deniers.

    Sorry, but that IS the facts, you have become what you claimed to have
    been fighting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)