Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:23:03 -0000 (UTC) Organization: muc.de e.V. Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:23:03 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2"; logging-data="68494"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de" User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE (amd64)) Bytes: 3925 Lines: 81 olcott wrote: > On 7/27/2024 4:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 7/27/2024 4:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/27/2024 3:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> Stopping running is not the same as halting. DDD emulated by >>>>>>>>> HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted. This is >>>>>>>>> not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating >>>>>>>>> normally (AKA halting). >>>>>>>> I think you're wrong, here. All your C programs are a stand in >>>>>>>> for turing machines. A turing machine is either running or >>>>>>>> halted. There is no third state "aborted". >>>>>>> Until you take the conventional ideas of >>>>>>> (a) UTM >>>>>>> (b) TM Description >>>>>>> (c) Decider >>>>>>> and combine them together to become a simulating partial halt decider. >>>>>> Where does the notion of "aborted", as being distinct from halted, come >>>>>> from? >>>>> After all of these years and you don't get that? >>>> "Aborted" being distinct from halted is an incoherent notion. It isn't >>>> consistent with turing machines. I was hoping you could give a >>>> justification for it. >>>>> A simulating partial halt decider can stop simulating >>>>> its input when it detects a non-halting behavior pattern. >>>>> This does not count as the input halting. >>>> Says who? Well, OK, it would be the machine halting, not the input, but >>>> that's a small point. >>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>> { >>> Infinite_Recursion(); >>> } >> [ .... ] >>> Do you understand that HHH(Infinite_Recursion) correctly >>> implements this criteria for the above input? >> There's nothing wrong with my understanding, but I'm not sure what >> "implementing a criterion (not "criteria")" means, [ .... ] > HHH correctly simulates Infinite_Recursion until it correctly > detects a the non-halting behavior pattern that every programmer > can see. > You dodged the question about whether you can see this > non-halting behavior pattern on the basis of this x86 code: It was an incoherent question. What on Earth does "implementing a criterion" even mean? But I told you there's nothing amiss with my understanding. [ .... ] You've got nothing more to say on my point, that the "aborted" state is the same thing as the "halted" state? > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).