Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:49:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3d124d535f6d59565df213fa58242ee156ee96bb@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
	<97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
	<v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
	<a177dd76613794d6bb877c65ffe6c587a8f31bc1@i2pn2.org>
	<v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
	<091e8b7baeea467ee894b1c79c8943cb9773adb7@i2pn2.org>
	<v6u346$3khl8$1@dont-email.me>
	<16ac79611a441e7e01119631051f69119eee958a@i2pn2.org>
	<v6v06i$3pivt$1@dont-email.me>
	<23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org>
	<v6v2t1$3pmjn$3@dont-email.me>
	<3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
	<v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me>
	<8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
	<v71qj3$bvm2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 08:49:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3346128"; 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: 4538
Lines: 68

Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:30:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/14/2024 7:20 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:00:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/14/2024 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Can you elaborate? All runtime instances share the same static
>>>>>> code.
>>>>>> I am talking about the inner HHH which is called by the simulated
>>>>>> DDD. That one is, according to you, aborted. Which is wrong,
>>>>>> because by virtue of running the same code, the inner HHH aborts
>>>>>> ITS simulation of DDD calling another HHH.
>>>> What are the twins and what is their difference? Do you disagree with
>>>> my tracing?

>>> The directly executed DDD is like the first call of infinite
>>> recursion. The emulated DDD is just like the second call of infinite
>>> recursion. When the second call of infinite recursion is aborted then
>>> the first call halts.
>> Not really. Execution does not continue.

>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>> {
>>>     Infinite_Recursion();
>>> }
>>> The above *is* infinite recursion.
>>> A program could emulate the above code and simply skip line 3 causing
>>> Infinite_Recursion() to halt.
>> That would be incorrect.

>>> When DDD calls HHH(DDD) HHH returns.
>> Therefore it does not need to be aborted.

>>> When DDD correctly emulated by HHH the call never returns as is proven
>>> below. The executed DDD() has HHH(DDD) skip this call.
>> I do not see this below.

>>> HHH(DDD) must skip this call itself by terminating the whole DDD
>>> process.
>> 
>>> Because this HHH does not know its own machine address HHH only sees
>>> that DDD calls a function that causes its first four steps to be
>>> repeated. HHH does not know that this is recursive simulation. To HHH
>>> it looks just like infinite recursion.
>> 
>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 -- create new process context for 1st DDD
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
>> 
>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call
>>> HHH(DDD) New slave_stack at:14e2ec -- create new process context for
>>> 2nd DDD
>> 
>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call
>>> HHH(DDD) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
>>> Stopped
>> How is this detected? Is it also triggered when calling a function in a
>> loop?

> You never bothered to answer whether or not you have 100% understanding
> of infinite recursion. If you don't then you can never understand what I
> am saying. If you do that I already proved my point. Here is the proof
> again:
As if you would believe me.
You never bothered to answer my questions (see above).
That only proves that HHH and DDD halt.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.