Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike
 Terry Error
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 19:52:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3qto3$354ia$3@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v3q52d$11tp3$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 23:52:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3314250"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3q52d$11tp3$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3587
Lines: 53

On 6/5/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

And Thus, DD that is using that same HH also gets out of that repeating 
state.

Or you are just admitting that you have been lying for years that DD was 
built correctly, perhaps because you don't know the meaning of the word 
correct.