Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<100cave$ublb$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Why Peter Olcott is correct Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:58:06 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 64 Message-ID: <100cave$ublb$2@dont-email.me> References: <KA9WP.124192$vK4b.46873@fx09.ams4> <100bbr4$le1d$1@dont-email.me> <SraWP.289779$o31.223364@fx04.ams4> <100bdv2$loat$1@dont-email.me> <100bii9$qanf$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 11:58:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c28b6652cb4717678123448df37d68ca"; logging-data="994987"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5vK9mfFG/JopWZoAk6e93" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:yRIIb7vI+8OrXx95wNcb1mBQBls= In-Reply-To: <100bii9$qanf$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 18.mei.2025 om 05:01 schreef olcott: > On 5/17/2025 8:42 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 18/05/2025 02:10, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 18 May 2025 02:06:43 +0100, Mike Terry wrote: >>> >>>> On 18/05/2025 01:11, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> In the case of pathological input, Peter's SHD only needs to report a >>>>> correct halting result *as if* the simulation was run to completion: >>>> >>>> Right. If the simulation is run to completion, that's like a UTM >>>> simulating the input, and equivalent to asking whether the input halts. >>>> This is the case for all inputs, not just "pathological" ones, whatever >>>> they are exactly. >>>> >>>> PO's DD() calls an "embedded HHH" which aborts its simulation. If that >>>> DD is simulated to completion it halts, so that is what his SHD >>>> needs to >>>> report. PO has verified this directly, and has published the traces >>>> showing DD halting when simulated to completion. >>>> >>>>> whether we abort, or continue until we run out of stack space makes no >>>>> difference: we are detecting INFINITE recursion which can be viewed as >>>>> non- >>>>> halting. >>>> >>>> Eh? PO does have a couple of SHDs that simulate his DD to completion, >>>> and they all show DD halting! >>>> There's no infinite recursion, only some level of finite recursive >>>> simulation. >>>> >>>> PO gets confused, because his SHD HHH simply /doesn't/ simulate DD to >>>> completion. It aborts, and then decides non-halting. That's the >>>> reverse of what you said in the first paragraph. So your thread title >>>> is misleading - PO is actually *incorrect*. I've corrected the >>>> title to >>>> avoid confusion. >>> >>> No, halting the simulation is NOT THE SAME as a halting result of >>> HALTING >>> for what is being simulated. I have changed the subject title back, you >>> jackass. >> >> Where did I say it was the same? /YOU/ said above that PO's SHD >> should decide *as if* the simulation was run to completion. [your >> highlighting]. If DD is simulated to completion it halts, so by your >> logic his SHD should decide halting. Instead it decides neverhalts. >> >> Mike. >> > > void DDD() > { > HHH(DDD); > return; > } > > *DDD simulated by HHH HAS NO COMPLETION* > Stop dreaming of an infinite recursion when your code includes the abort code. Indeed, the simulation is not complete, but it has an incorrect end, because of the abort. This causes a program that halts. Stop your dreams and face the facts. Come out of rebuttal mode.