Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:05:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e198617313100a552662932ac49ce17"; logging-data="3609069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tvv7i4hM+LE/p/riWOSiA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/bQfkxl48RlMhyzDdsu5G55YCBE= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4181 On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating >>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as >>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller. >>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which >>> returns „halting” to main… hold on. > Where do you disagree? > >>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that >>>> their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD >>>> correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation. >>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts. >>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation. >>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}. > >> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that >> is not the behavior of the input. > What is the difference here? > >> Deciders compute the mapping from >> their actual finite string input to an output by a sequence of finite >> string transformations. > And should get the right answer. > >> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the >> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH. > No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period. > >> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the recursive >> emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own emulator. > Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same behaviour > as DDD. > You don't seem to understand basic facts. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return. That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer