Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:34:54 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0dd6f954f53a4d736d02d0d1c3f3a3e2e7a7d5bc@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
	<b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
	<va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
	<da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
	<878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
	<eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
	<vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
	<van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
	<vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
	<vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
	<vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
	<vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
	<vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
	<b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
	<vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
	<vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:34:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="920384"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4796
Lines: 54

Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:48:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 9/5/2024 5:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 04.sep.2024 om 14:37 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/4/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:42:56 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 9/1/2024 5:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 18:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 10:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 8:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-29 14:04:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/29/2024 3:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-28 11:46:58 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>>>>>>> The direct execution of DDD includes the behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD after it has been aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> And the simulator should also simulate until it sees the
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour of after the simulated HHH has aborted its simulator.
>>>>>>> People that are not as stupid can see that HHH cannot wait for
>>>>>>> itself to abort its own simulation.
>>>>>> And people (except the stupid ones) can see that, because HHH
>>>>>> cannot wait for itself,
>>>>> Because this would require it to wait forever,
>>>>> thus HHH knows that to meet its own requirement to halt it must
>>>>> abort its simulation.
>>>> And because HHH is simulating itself, the simulated HHH also aborts.
>>> It can not possibly do this. The outermost directly executed HHH
>>> always sees the abort criteria before the next inner HHH sees it.
>>> The abort criteria is that HHH sees the DDD has been emulated twice in
>>> sequence.
>>> When the outer HHH sees that itself and its emulated HHH has emulated
>>> DDD once the emulated HHH only sees that itself has emulated DDD once.
>> Indeed. A very good explanation. That is what I told you many times.
>> The outer HHH fails to see that the inner HHH would abort as well,
> IT WOULD NOT ABORT AS WELL. YOU HAVE THE FACTS INCORRECTLY.
The input to HHH calls that same HHH.

> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS AND THE
> OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.
If the outermost didn’t abort, the next one would.
You can test this by setting Root to a small integer and aborting
when it is less than zero (decrementing per simulation level).
I would also be interested in flipping the condition, so that only
the outermost level did NOT abort. Or maybe a boolean Root being
flipped in each recursion.

> 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.
If we have an infinite chain of people all interrupting each other,
nothing gets done either.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.