Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:01:31 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cd36dcf87daefa9ae472cc426d57704c2baa4292@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
	<87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
	<vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
	<875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
	<87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
	<vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
	<PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
	<vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
	<1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
	<vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me> <vvqln4$g8ck$5@dont-email.me>
	<vvrftj$ndkg$1@dont-email.me> <vvrima$nejb$3@dont-email.me>
	<vvua3t$1hm37$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 09:01:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="152942"; 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

Am Tue, 13 May 2025 03:17:32 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

> When his HHH simulates DD, it spots a pattern in the simulation which PO
> calls his "infinite recursive simulation" pattern.  PO believes that
> this pattern "specifies non halting behaviour" but it does not, as it
> can match for both halting and non-halting computations.  Anyhow, PO has
> coded HHH to abort and return non-halting if it sees that pattern.  He
> really really really believes that pattern "specifies non halting",
> despite observing with his own eyes DD halting when called directly! 
> The rest of his arguments are just attempts to justify why HHH is
> "correct" to decide non-halting, despite DD halting.  They generally
> amount to something like "during simulation my HHH detected non-halting
> behaviour, so it is correct to decide non-halting".

Can you remind me how it matches halting computations? IIRC it looks
for invocations of the same function (across simulation levels, mind)
without conditional statements inbetween. Or is the impossibility of
recursive simulation the only reason for false positives?

-- 
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.