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: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 22:57:35 +0000
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) sees the exact same behavior pattern as
 HHH(Infinite_Recursion)
Newsgroups: comp.theory
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$5@dont-email.me>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:57:35 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <v88r09$ju20$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <XDidnfUGgcz9gzX7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 141
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-0Esid0IFqkfII0jRNCWcIbGMa0n7Ajd9u3qx/hzxW3GoEhTQlQtDqX2WMuZCNSg/F2raDUI7gHZ+ID2!I1gKPdkbP8szkkSydD1KgS7/syCGC0I64kUrtL27fJX24QOvq7OncVRjHTJEFz4VkysnoyXVHn/f!Nc6JmEjTYMRKgYM1zCrYVPTmGdA=
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: 9339

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:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stopping running is not the same as halting.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
>>>>>>>>>>> normally (AKA halting).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in for
>>>>>>>>>> turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or halted. There is
>>>>>>>>>> no third state "aborted".  An aborted C program certainly doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> correspond with a running turing machine - so it must be a halted turing
>>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So aborted programs are halted programs.  If you disagree, perhaps you
>>>>>>>>>> could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aborting is an action performed by a simulator, not the TM being simulated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we want to count "aborted" as some kind of final status, it will have to be the status 
>>>>>>>>> of a specific /PARTIAL SIMULATOR's/ simulation of a given computation.  That's not a 
>>>>>>>>> property of the computation itself, as different partial simulators can simulate the same 
>>>>>>>>> computation and terminate for different reasons.  Like HHH(DDD) aborts, while UTM(DDD) 
>>>>>>>>> simulates to completion and so the final simulation status is halts. [Neither of those 
>>>>>>>>> outcomes contradict the fact that the computation DDD() halts.]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If some partial simulator halts when simulating a computation [as with UTM(DDD)] that 
>>>>>>>>> implies the computation DDD() halts. But if the simulator aborts, it doesn't say that much 
>>>>>>>>> (in and of itself) about whether the /computation/ halts.  The halting problem statement is 
>>>>>>>>> not concerned with simulations or how the simulations end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every time anyone in these PO threads says "halts" it ought to be 100% clear to everyone 
>>>>>>>>> whether the computation itself is being discussed, or whether some simulation final status 
>>>>>>>>> is intended. (But that's far from being the case!)  Since the halting problem is concerned 
>>>>>>>>> with computations halting and not how partial simulations are ended, I suggest that PO 
>>>>>>>>> explicitly make clear that he is referring to simulations, whenever that is the case. It 
>>>>>>>>> seems reasonable that readers seeing "halts" with no further clarification can interpret 
>>>>>>>>> that as actual computation behaviour, as that is how the term is always used in the 
>>>>>>>>> literature.  Same with other terms like "reach"...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So when PO says "DDD simulated by HHH cannot reach its final ret instruction" is he talking 
>>>>>>>>> about the computation DDD() [as defined mathematically], or its simulation by HHH?  He 
>>>>>>>>> means the latter, but its far from clear, I'd say!  [I think most readers now have come 
>>>>>>>>> around to reading it as a statement about simulations rather than the actual computation, 
>>>>>>>>> which totally changes things...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that DDD emulated by HHH 100% exactly
>>>>>>>> and precisely according to the actual x86 semantics of
>>>>>>>> the emulated code including the recursive call that causes
>>>>>>>> HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD cannot possibly get
>>>>>>>> past it own 0000216b machine address.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Anyone as much as hinting otherwise is not being truthful*
>>>>>>>> If we remove all of the problematic code then this same
>>>>>>>> trace still occurs until it crashes from OOM error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is 
>>>>>>> correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is 
>>>>>>> unable to reach the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is ridiculously stupid to expect the correct emulation
>>>>>> of a non-halting input to end.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant nonsense ignored.
>>>>> We are not discussing a non-halting HHH, 
>>>>
>>>> No we are not. Please don't act so stupidly.
>>>
>>> Why are you contradicting yourself so often? It does not look very clever.
>>> You were talking about an infinite set of HHH, some of which abort, some of which do not abort.
>>
>> *This is all that I am willing to talk about with you*
>> Every change of subject away from this point will be
>> construed as the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.
>>
>> 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);
> }
> 
> You never bothered to think about it.

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:

-  suppressing trace entries in H which would make it obvious that the matching calls
    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.

-  omitting a "simulation level" column in his output.  He included that info for a brief
    period, following my suggestion, but then removed it, saying it "confused" readers.
    Of course it did no such thing, but PO thinks anyone who disagrees with him is
    confused (or stupid or ignorant).  So perhaps the column actually helped people understand
    or at least question what the trace was actually saying, and PO didn't like that.)



Mike.