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

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