Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.crackpot > #3 > unrolled thread

Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

Started byjoes <noreply@example.com>
First post2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
Last post2024-06-13 17:38 +0000
Articles 5 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.crackpot

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
    Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:58 -0500
      Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 16:53 +0000
        Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 12:06 -0500
          Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:38 +0000

#3 — Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules

Fromjoes <noreply@example.com>
Date2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
SubjectRe: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules
Message-ID<v4ec1a$3rbs4$6@i2pn2.org>
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :

>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt
>>> decider H.
>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>> input when directly run.
> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
terminating inputs.

-- 
joes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2024-06-13 07:58 -0500
Message-ID<v4eqdj$28g4v$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#3
On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
> 
>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt
>>>> decider H.
>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>> input when directly run.
>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*

> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
> terminating inputs.
> 

*NO IT IS FREAKING NOT WRONG ON NON-TERMINATING INPUTS*

void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then

   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5

Fromjoes <noreply@example.com>
Date2024-06-13 16:53 +0000
Message-ID<v4f876$3sn5q$1@i2pn2.org>
In reply to#4
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :

>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>>> input when directly run.
>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>> terminating inputs.
A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.

-- 
joes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2024-06-13 12:06 -0500
Message-ID<v4f8u0$2c3i9$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#5
On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
> 
>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>>>> input when directly run.
>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>> terminating inputs.
> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
> 

void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}

In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?

*THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*

To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE uses the Clang
compiler [7] to translate it to the intermediate representation
of the LLVM framework [15]. Then AProVE
*symbolically executes the LLVM program* and uses abstraction
to obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) containing
all possible program runs.

AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11 — Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding

Fromjoes <noreply@example.com>
Date2024-06-13 17:38 +0000
SubjectRe: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding
Message-ID<v4faq7$3smqv$6@i2pn2.org>
In reply to#6
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:06:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :

>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>>> terminating inputs.
>> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
>> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
>> 
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
> 
> In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
> that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
> possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?
Yes, because to give that result it must halt.

> *THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*
> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
This is not a simulator.

-- 
joes

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.crackpot

csiph-web