Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:23:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v5lrtd$386u3$2@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> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:23:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d53ffa9559a607513cb041b1d4db9b3";
	logging-data="3414979"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+8Whd2NTuIRloA+gDWG2Hb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XjZQxjeRaTqyCJIx38R/DJuH4Aw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5069

Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:30 schreef olcott:
> On 6/27/2024 4:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 26.jun.2024 om 15:30 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/26/2024 3:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 25.jun.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/25/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be true, but it is irrelevant, because the simulated H0 
>>>>>> is aborted prematurely. The simulating H0 aborts after two cycles, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *I am not even talking about a simulating halt decider yet dumbo*
>>>>
>>>> Neither am I. Why do you mention a simulating halt decider? (Who is 
>>>> the dumbo?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simulated H0 is never aborted.
>>> Only termination analyzers do that.
>>
>> So, you change subject again. 
> 
> When you prove that you are totally overwhelmed and confused
> by the original issue I break it down into simpler steps.
> 
> If you don't have a slight clue about the C programming
> language then the first step is you must learn this language
> otherwise it is like trying to talk to someone about
> differential calculus that does not know how to count to ten.

If... But since this if does not apply, the the is irrelevant.
You keep repeating irrelevant texts to hide that you cannot show any 
error in my reasoning.

> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int H0(ptr P);
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    H0(Infinite_Loop);
>    H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>    H0(DDD);
> }
> 
> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that when H0
> emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and
> DDD that it must abort these emulations so that itself can terminate
> normally.
> 
> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-halting
> by returning 0 to its caller.
> 
> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that their
> finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD correctly
> emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation.
> 

Another attempt to distract from the subject.You claim you are not 
talking about halt-deciders or termination analyzers, but now you bring 
them up again.

We are discussing an H0 that aborts after two cycles. I do not tolerate 
to go away from this point.

The examples of Infinite_Loop and Infinite_Recursion do not apply. They 
are completely different from an H0 that aborts after two cycles.

The last example can be formulated much simpler:

        int main()
        {
          return H(main, 0);
        }

For which you proved that H returns after two cycles, although the 
simulated H did not return, because it was aborted prematurely when it 
had only one cycle to go.
This is exactly the same as in the DDD example. There is no infinite 
recursion, only a H0, the simulation of which is aborted when it had 
only one cycle to go.
Only an infinite simulation needs to be aborted.
There is no need to abort a simulation of an aborting simulation. So, H0 
has no need to abort itself. It only needs to abort another Hx, that 
does not abort. Saying that it must abort is showing insufficient 
insight in the verified facts.