Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD emulated by HHH --- Deception Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:00:57 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 14:00:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7642a9c77deaf2c694865d9c5231f7da"; logging-data="3098976"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19o+YIX3PD+Tv1c98PC12LA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zg/+zS26ZKslp1dr71U01xd5lUU= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6447 Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:15 schreef olcott: > On 9/8/2024 9:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-09-08 13:58:32 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS >>>>>>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the >>>>>>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner >>>>>>>> one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, >>>>>>>> which would halt as well. >>>>>>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, >>>>>>>> does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was >>>>>>>> coded in the program >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for >>>>>>>>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing >>>>>>>>> is never done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are >>>>>>>> only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in >>>>>>>> the simulation. >>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but >>>>>>>> this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This >>>>>>>> applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly >>>>>>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which >>>>>>> would wait for the second which would wait for third >>>>>>> on and on... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What is olcott's problem with English? >>>>>> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another >>>>>> way must be correct. >>>>>> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way >>>>>> to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter >>>>>> what clever code it includes. >>>>> >>>>> You must be a brain dead moron. >>>>> As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions >>>>> it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches >>>>> your computer on fire. >>>> >>>> That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates the >>>> sequence of instructions it was provided. >>>> >>> >>> >>>      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. >>> >>> >>> The above refers to determining that *its input D* >>> "specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations" >>> When people change this to a *non-input D* they are >>> trying to get away with deception. >> >> We know except the only "people" that do so is you. >> > > _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] > > Try to show all of the details of how DDD emulated > by HHH ever reaches machine address  00002183 > > Sequences of machine addressed when DDD is emulated by HHH > 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a > which calls an emulated HHH(DDD). > > What are the next instructions of DDD emulated by the emulated HHH ? > The instructions at 0000217f, 00002182, 00002183 and the program halt are, among others, the ones that HHH fails to simulate, where a correct simulation (such as by HHH1 and the unmodified world class simulator) shows that they are reachable. But HHH fails to reach them. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.