Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:20:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8fb0f8923d35b07588cd71b03e17af462a6b1456@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me> <vs9r1b$28tqg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
 <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me> <vsepbh$11dqg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsf1b2$1a4fc$1@dont-email.me>
 <038ec0393503335f3bb71d4291c06e0133fc68f9@i2pn2.org>
 <vsjmks$26s7s$1@dont-email.me> <vsk9jm$2p2bj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vskls9$378kj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:27:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2894062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vskls9$378kj$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4974
Lines: 75

On 4/2/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/2/2025 4:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 4/2/2025 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2025 9:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer is always correct to abort the
>>>>>>> simulation and reject the input as non-halting when-so-ever this 
>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>> would otherwise prevent itself from halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the input is halting, as proven by direct execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something other than the input is halting.
>>>>> HHH1(DDD) shows the same behavior as the direct execution.
>>>>>    HHH(DDD) shows the behavior of the actual input.
>>>> Why are you not passing DDD as input? Why do you not call what you're
>>>> doing HHH(HHH(DDD))? What is the difference in what is passed to HHH1?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This seems to be above your level of technical competence.
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> Anyone understanding the above code where HHH
>>> emulates DDD according to the semantics of the
>>> x86 language knows that this DDD (not some
>>> other different DDD) cannot possibly reach its
>>> own final halt state.
>>
>> Category error.  The algorithm DDD and the algorithm HHH are fixed and 
>> immutable, so to say that "this DDD cannot possibly reach its own 
>> final state" implies that HHH varies but it does not.
>>
>> The only valid statements would be that either HHH *does* emulate DDD 
>> to a final state, or HHH *does not* emulate DDD to a final state.
>>
>> So which is it?
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH specifies recursive emulation.

Finitely recursive emulation.

> DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES NOT specify recursive emulation.

No, HHH1 still sees DDD call HHH to finitely recursively emulate DDD.

> 
> 
> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop 
> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own 
> termination. The only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that 
> deciders must always halt.
> 
> 

But the input doesn't prevent its own termination, at least not the one 
based on the HHH that returns 0, as that calls its own HHH that will 
also return that 0.

Since that is the input given to the HHH that returns 0, it can't 
correctly use that argument, as its input WILL halt when completely 
emulated, it is just that this HHH doesn't do it, so it just wrong.

Your problem is you are too stupid to know what you are talking about.