Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:19:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 20:19:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c4ff8408f3b943eae31dc22ab1458b62";
	logging-data="1762342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fcsz0kF1cLJfSPnOgoxmr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uD2RUOC4YoID4dIf90k0uPf1Wqg=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6623

Op 25.jun.2024 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
> On 6/25/2024 9:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 25.jun.2024 om 15:12 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/25/2024 7:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 24.jun.2024 om 23:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:36 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:48:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:17:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That code is not from the mentined trace file. In that file 
>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> is at the addresses 2093..20a4. According to the trace no 
>>>>>>>>>> instruction
>>>>>>>>>> at the address is executed (because that address points to the 
>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>> byte of a three byte instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In order to make my examples I must edit the code and this 
>>>>>>>>> changes the
>>>>>>>>> addresses of some functions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you need to make an example when you already have one in the
>>>>>>>> file mentioned in the subject line?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to make a few more examples such as HH1(DD,DD)
>>>>>> AFACT HH1 is the same as HH0, right? What happens when HH1 tries to
>>>>>> simulate a function DD1 that only calls HH1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef uint32_t u32;
>>>>> u32 H(u32 P, u32 I);
>>>>>
>>>>> int P(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H(P,P);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I am going to have to go through my code and standardize my names.
>>>>> H(P,P) was the original name. Then I had to make a one parameter
>>>>> version, a version that is identical to H, except P does not call
>>>>> it and then versions using different algorithms. People have never
>>>>> been able to understand the different algorithm.
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr2)();
>>>>> int  HH(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH
>>>>> int HH1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH
>>>>> int  HHH(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH
>>>>> int HHH1(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH
>>>>>
>>>>> *The different algorithm version has been deprecated*
>>>>> int  H(ptr2 , ptr2 I);  // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H
>>>>> int H1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is much easier for people to see the infinite recursion*
>>>>> *behavior pattern when they see it actually cycle through the*
>>>>> *same instructions twice*
>>>>
>>>> Twice is not equal to infinitely. When will you see that?
>>>> It is strange that you call that an infinite recursion, when H 
>>>> aborts after two cycles and the simulated H cannot reach its own 
>>>> abort operation, because it is aborted when it had only one more 
>>>> cycle to go.
>>>> None of the aborted simulations would cycle more than twice, so 
>>>> infinite recursion is not seen for an H that aborts the simulation 
>>>> of itself.
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int H0(ptr P);
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>
>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>
>> Contradictio in terminis. The fact that the simulated H0 does not 
>> return shows that the simulation is incorrect.
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> Ah so you simply *DON'T BELIEVE IN* infinite recursion where a
> correct simulating termination analyzer would be required to
> abort its simulation to correctly report non-terminating behavior.
> That seems quite dumb of you.

Change of subject ignored.

> 
>> The simulated H0 does not return, because it is aborted one cycle too 
>> soon. One cycle later it would return. 
> 
> Complete lack of sufficient software engineering skill.

Maybe you should study some software engineering to get over it.

> Unless the outermost directly executed H0 aborts its
> simulation after a fixed number of recursive invocations
> NONE OF THEM DO.

Change of subject. We are talking about an H0 that aborts, so dreaming 
of one that does not abort is irrelevant.
H0 aborts after two cycles. Then it aborts the simulated H0 which at 
that moment has run only one cycle. One cycle later the simulated H0 
would also return, if not aborted.

> 
> This did baffle me for three days 3.5 years ago until
> I took the time to THINK IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

Apparently, your thinking went completely wrong.