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: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 17:48:37 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <v5mm0n$3cmj8$5@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>
 <v5ml2e$3cibm$9@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 17:48:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d53ffa9559a607513cb041b1d4db9b3";
	logging-data="3562088"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+L3Pq9lagh3HMVBUAwzr8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r0Bk7ySzFnDSbj/Hpw67enQg51E=
In-Reply-To: <v5ml2e$3cibm$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6614

Op 28.jun.2024 om 17:32 schreef olcott:
> 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.
>  >
> 

But there is no correct simulation, so Sipser's approval does not apply.
Let's agree about a two cycle recursive simulation, for which you have 
not shown any evidence that it can be done correctly.