Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!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: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:32:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <v5ml2e$3cibm$9@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> <v5lrtd$386u3$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5mh9e$3cds2$2@dont-email.me> <v5mip7$3cmj8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5mjd3$3cibm$4@dont-email.me> <v5mkf6$3cmj8$4@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 17:32:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e198617313100a552662932ac49ce17";
	logging-data="3557750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I/dLgi9RI5wU+hL/beAWz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MJhwtWJ+SVVrA2CCeLwO06A3tt8=
In-Reply-To: <v5mkf6$3cmj8$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6313

On 6/28/2024 10:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.jun.2024 om 17:04 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/28/2024 9:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 16:27 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/28/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>
>>>> I only do this because you have gotten overwhelmed.
>>>> I prove my point step-by-step and because you don't
>>>> understand any of the steps you leap to the conclusion
>>>> that I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> We are discussing an H0 that aborts after two cycles. I do not 
>>>>> tolerate to go away from this point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I updated all of my names in my code.
>>>> // HHH(DDD) and HHH1(DDD) are the standard names for DDD input
>>>> // DDD calls HHH(DDD). HHH1 is identical to HHH.
>>>>
>>>> // HH(DD,DD) and HH1(DD,DD) are the standard names for (DD,DD) input
>>>> // DD calls HH(DD,DD) and HH1 is identical to HH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You haven't shown that you even understand that Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> doesn't halt. You must understand this before you can understand
>>>> the more complex example of DDD.
>>>
>>> We agreed to talk only about the simulator which aborts after two 
>>> cycles of recursive simulation.
>>
>> Not if you don't have the prerequisites.
>>
> 
> I have them.
> But you try to distract from the fact that you do not even understand a 
> two cycle recursive simulation. We cannot talk about infinite recursion 
> before you understand a two cycle recursive simulation..

I spent two years coming up with these precise words before
I contacted professor Sipser for his approval.

<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 words 10/13/2022>

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.
 >

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