Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike
 Terry Error
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:51:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <v3q52d$11tp3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3oeh5$jthg$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3of8e$lirl$1@dont-email.me> <v3ofld$jthh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3oh8l$pi6u$3@dont-email.me> <v3ohkh$jthg$4@dont-email.me>
 <v3ohvb$pi6u$5@dont-email.me> <v3q0u4$q84p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:51:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1111843"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+xF11peyvs4KY9v/EZBcvM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J9bdIY2vBRaNLsyf3GQUlhP/mEQ=
In-Reply-To: <v3q0u4$q84p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3438

On 6/5/2024 10:40 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 5/06/24 04:19, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/4/2024 9:13 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 5/06/24 04:07, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:39 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>>>> On 5/06/24 03:33, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2024 8:20 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/06/24 20:02, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Those words are dead obviously correct about how a partial 
>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>> does correctly determine the halt status of this function:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion2(u32 N)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>      H(Infinite_Recursion2, (ptr)N);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does Infinite_Recursion2 halt?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When halting is defined in the software engineering terms of
>>>>>> terminating normally then Infinite_Recursion2 does not even
>>>>>> halt when it runs out of stack space and crashes.
>>>>>
>>>>> H always halts, and never runs out of stack space, because it is a 
>>>>> decider. How does Infinite_Recursion2 run out of stack space, if H 
>>>>> doesn't run out of stack space?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When we are on actual physical machines as my fully operational
>>>> HH/DD are running put of stack space is possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then increase the stack space until it doesn't run out. Turing 
>>> machines can't run out of stack space unless you programmed them wrong.
>>
>> It is fully operational C code it can run out of stack space
>> even if you give it googolplex of terabytes.
>>
> 
> Sounds like it's infinite recursion. Infinite recursion doesn't halt. 
> Deciders always halt, so a program that's infinitely recursive isn't a 
> decider.

HH detects non-halting inputs and stops simulating them when
it sees a repeating state.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer