Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:46:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4aukt$3nf9m$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v44da3$3i5jo$1@dont-email.me> <v46b4u$99o6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v474uv$ggn5$8@dont-email.me> <v490b8$v2i4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4a192$157ic$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:46:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3915062"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4a192$157ic$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5547
Lines: 118

On 6/11/24 1:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-10 15:09:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2024 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-09 14:13:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
>>>>>>> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
>>>>>>> have been met:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim 
>>>>>>> words10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are 
>>>>>> asking a question that contradicts itself.
>>>>>> A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up 
>>>>>> to the point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically 
>>>>>> impossible. So, either it is a correct simulation and then we see 
>>>>>> that the simulated HH aborts and returns, or the simulation is 
>>>>>> incorrect, because it assumes incorrectly that things that happen 
>>>>>> (abort) do not happen.
>>>>>> A premature conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a clearer explanation now that I have gone through
>>>>> all of Mikko's posts: (you must know C to understand this)
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>
>>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    P(I);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(x, x);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>>
>>>> As the code above shows, HHH is not a simulating halt decider:
>>>> (a) HHH does not simulate, (b) HHH does not decide.
>>>> Consequently, you are talking about nothing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that is correct. I begin with ordinary infinite recursion.
>>> If my reviewer does not understand that then they lack sufficient
>>> technical competence to review my work.
>>>
>>> After they first understand infinite recursion then I show how
>>> infinite recursion is isomorphic to nested simulation.
>>
>> To proove an isomorphism required much more effort that proving merely
>> what you need to prove. It is easier to prove a claim about recursive
>> calls and then transform that proof to a proof about nested simulation.
>> Other aspects of an isomorphism are not relevant so hardly worth of a
>> proof.
>>
> 
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
>    HH(x, x);
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00001de2] 55         push ebp
> [00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DDD
> [00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DDD
> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
> [00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
> [00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
> [00001df6] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
> 
> DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly reach its own
> simulated "ret" instruction at [00001df6] and terminate normally
> and no one can possibly show the detailed steps of how it could.
> 

And the question still is why should we care.

Partial simulations do not, by themselves, prove non-halting behavior.

So, you are just diverting yourself from the task you claim to be 
working on.