Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 22:18:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <98a76870d2e974387c22835dee21c4140b1b0fe6@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <3d124d535f6d59565df213fa58242ee156ee96bb@i2pn2.org>
 <v7349r$mjis$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 02:18:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3273011"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v7349r$mjis$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6135
Lines: 97

On 7/15/24 8:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> This *is* an answer too difficult for you to understand.

And when will you learn that the correct x86 emulation of a "call HHH" 
instruction is not, and can not be, the emulation of DDD?

That just shows you are just a stupid LIAR that doesn't know what he is 
talking about.

Try to show me where in the Intel x86 manual it gives you any grounds to 
say that.

It is just like your "Diagonalization" proof claim that you later said 
was just nonsense (as is all you arguments).

> 
> New slave_stack at:1038c4
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>