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: HHH(DDD) sees the exact same behavior pattern as
 HHH(Infinite_Recursion)
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 07:19:16 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <828511aba63b4b4d57b39e2facc931cf5ddbf67f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <v82bi4$39v6n$4@dont-email.me>
	<v82tr5$3dftr$2@dont-email.me> <v82vtl$3dq41$2@dont-email.me>
	<v830hg$3dftr$9@dont-email.me> <v83des$2nhr$1@news.muc.de>
	<KUidnalBUcYWDjj7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v84d5a$3p1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v84tpk$3rc90$2@dont-email.me>
	<v85kdi$3v9fb$2@dont-email.me> <v8659q$2409$3@dont-email.me>
	<v868k2$309r$1@dont-email.me> <v87gcm$cmps$1@dont-email.me>
	<v883vq$g39i$2@dont-email.me> <v88r09$ju20$5@dont-email.me>
	<XDidnfUGgcz9gzX7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v89bcu$mrtd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 07:19:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="845166"; 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: 4692
Lines: 66

Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:16:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/29/2024 5:57 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 29/07/2024 20:36, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 29.jul.2024 om 15:03 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/29/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 28.jul.2024 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 2:14 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 28.jul.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/2024 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 28.jul.2024 om 05:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 7:40 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 27/07/2024 19:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> You didn't even bother to look at how HHH examines the execution
>>>> trace of Infinite_Recursion() to determine that Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>> Because of this you cannot see that the execution trace of DDD
>>>> correctly emulated by DDD is essentially this same trace and thus
>>>> also specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>
>>> That is only because you are cheating, by hiding the conditional
>>> branch instructions of HHH, which should follow the call instruction
>>> into HHH.
>>> HHH simulating itself is more like
>>> void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
>>>    if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
>>> }
>>
>> Also there is the crucial difference that Infinite_Recursion() trace is
>> a trace for a single x86 processor.  The HHH/DDD trace is not a single
>> processor trace, as it contains entries for multiple virtual x86
>> processors, all merged into one.  There are all sorts of argument that
>> can be applied to the simple single x86 processor trace scenario, that
>> simply don't work when transferred to a multi-processor-simulation
>> merged trace.  PO doesn't understand these differences, and has said
>> there is NO difference!  He also deliberately tries to hide these
>> difference, by making his trace output resemble a single-processor
>> trace as far as he can:
non sequitur:
> The simple fact that you continue to ignore is that DDD is correctly
> emulated by DDD according to the semantics of the x86 instructions of
> DDD and HHH that includes that DDD does call HHH(DDD) in recursive
> emulation that will never stop running unless aborted.
Nobody is ignoring that.
The "unless" applies - every HHH in fact aborts simulating.

>> -  suppressing trace entries in H which would make it obvious that the
>> matching calls
> I am not suppressing any freaking trace entries
You are completely suppressing the trace of the simulator HHH.

> Two complete simulations show a pair of identical TMD's are simulating a
> pair of identical inputs. We can see this thus proving recursive
> simulation.
Except for the Root variable.

>>     to HHH are from completely separate logical x86 processors.  The
>> output as he presents it
>>     looks pretty much identical to the corresponding (but totally
>> different character) CALL
>>     scenario where HHH calls DDD rather than simulating it.
Right. I was confused by that for a while. A call could not be aborted.

-- 
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.