Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 02:27:52 +0000
Subject: Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9nev6$1dvef$2@dont-email.me>
 <TqucndEmmvrpASL7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9o712$1h5u4$2@dont-email.me>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 03:27:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <v9o712$1h5u4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <9TOdndS9qv01l137nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 113
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-lKXevjU0grvKVP0Q+v+J4dJCLSN0N3I/ten1pVz6fBOZUDg5GoAk0uH9g0zGmwOxfscWxyDZ/gfJtZM!FHqZtvv2lnbdR4InWNYlGP/HTXfoo41ZR7NMLw0ffYqj6v+2ECUOQVIR+waQZsHPl5pW6zdOtHjt!NSdyyPaV8yDHD3b/oDUDmQHRe0M=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7317

On 16/08/2024 19:50, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 1:37 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 16/08/2024 12:59, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 1:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
>>>> I never said such a thing.
>>>> I repeatedly told that the 
>>>
>>> *YOUR MISTAKE*
>>>> simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go.
>>> That is WRONG. The outermost directly executed HHH aborts
>>> as soon as it has seen enough of the emulated execution
>>> trace to correctly predict that an unlimited execution
>>> would never stop running.
>>>
>>> *With abort as soon as you know*
>>> *there is never one more cycle to go*
>>>
>>> *MIKES CORRECTION OF YOUR MISTAKE*
>>> On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>  > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>>>  >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
>>>  >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
>>>  >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
>>>  >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
>>>  >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
>>>  >>    DDD halts        voila
>>>  >> HHH halts
>>>  >
>>>  > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated
>>>  > HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
>>>
>>> *THIS PART RIGHT HERE*
>>>  > then the outer level H would have aborted its
>>>  > identical simulation earlier. You know that, right?
>>>
>>>  > [It's what people have been discussing
>>>  > here endlessly for the last few months! :) ]
>>>  >
>>>  > So your trace is impossible...
>>>  >
>>
>> I supposed that I should be annoyed that you deliberately ignore my request to stop misrepresting 
>> my views and opinions.  You /know/ I don't agree with how you're misusing my words - but you do it 
>> anyway.
>>
> 
> Both Joes and Fred seem to think that every HHH can wait for
> the next one to abort and one of them will still eventually
> abort.

Fred above says that when HHH aborts simulated HHH, the simulation has only one more cycle to go 
before it terminates.  *HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HHH MUST WAIT ONE MORE CYCLE BEFORE ABORTING*.  And I'm 
pretty sure he doesn't think what you think he "seems to think".

> 
> Please try and explain to me exactly how your words did
> not correct this error.

Well first off - what you're challenging me to explain isn't something that either Fred or Joes were 
saying, so if you believed my words "corrected that error" then you had no justification in quoting 
me, because Fred and Joes /weren't making that error/.  This is just you not following the thread of 
conversation, or not understanding the meaning of what Fred/Joes are saying to you.  It would be 
like you saying "HHH correctly decides DDD" and I post a reply sending you to an atheist web site. 
When challenged I say "I thought you believed in God which is a mistake, so sending you to the web 
site would address that error."  [You see, it doesn't hang together...]

Secondly, my quote above is pointing out why Joes' counterexample doesn't work.  It says that the 
/simulation/ of DDD by HHH never reaches DDD's final return e.g. because HHH *ABORTS* its simulation 
before that happens.  *NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT HHH WAITING ONE MORE CYCLE BEFORE ABORTING*.

For the record, so you're not tempted to continue misrepresnting me:

-  HHH /does/ abort its simulation of DDD before the simulation reaches DDD's final ret.
    (I'll go with Fred's "one cycle too early", for a suitable understanding of "cycle".
     The cycles aren't machine instructions, and each extra cycle we consider takes
     exponentially more machine instructions to simulate...  That's all ok.)

-  From a /design/ perspective, coding a new HHH2 to be like HHH but waiting one more cycle
    achieves nothing because then its corresponding new DDD2 will also run for one more cycle
    before halting, compared with DDD.  So it remains the case that HHH2 aborts DDD2 one cycle
    before it will halt!
    So such a /design/ change does not help you.
    *I am not suggesting you redesign HHH to wait more cycles*
    *Neither Fred, Joes nor I believe that HHH waiting more cycles will fix*
    *your /design/ problem*.   [No design for HHH will work, as Linz proves.  Claiming
    one of your design decisions is "correct" because an alterntive fails makes no sense.]

-  From a /run time/ perspective, yes, creating HHH2 to wait one more cycle enables it
    to correctly handle previous input DDD!  It will no longer abort too soon, so it will see
    DDD return and correctly decide "halts".  But Linz/Sipser don't contradict this -
    they both argue that HHH2 will decide /DDD2/ (not DDD) incorrectly.

So what you're doing is confusing /design-time/ decisions that /you/ make, with /run-time/ decisions 
that HHH/HHH2 etc. make.  <Duh! PO slaps head in sudden understanding!!>  Also, you're calling 
different things the same name which would be confusing for anybody, but in your case it's worse, 
because you genuinely don't understand where different objects are involved.


Mike.


> 
> If you keep insisting that I am wrong and fail to explain all
> of the details of how I am wrong I will continue to assume that
> it is your error of not paying close enough attention.

You won't understand my explanation above in any case.  The point is that now you understand that 
you are misrepresenting my views - SO DON'T DO IT ANY MORE.