Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 21:51:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <v5qh87$aulp$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$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> <v5mm0n$3cmj8$5@dont-email.me>
 <v5mpt1$3e4fd$1@dont-email.me> <v5mv0i$3eubb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5mvio$3f3fn$2@dont-email.me> <v5n0ik$3eubb$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5n19g$3f3fn$3@dont-email.me> <v5ohvu$3r9h9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 04:51:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b752116cbce9cc9180c7aac2a5283cd";
	logging-data="359097"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/80p09/ENv3FFUoWRrjhX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Rqr4/JeukveXzHLlEXrBtg+DboM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5ohvu$3r9h9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7910

On 6/29/2024 3:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.jun.2024 om 21:01 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/28/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 20:31 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/28/2024 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 18:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 10:48 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 17:32 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 programming language specifies that
>>>>>> N steps of DDD were correctly emulated until the infinite
>>>>>> recursion behavior pattern was correctly matched.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you say is that two equals infinite.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>> {
>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *In that case one = infinite*
>>>
>>> Change of subject ignored. This loop has more then two iterations. 
>>> Why claiming falsehoods?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *We are not talking about infinite recursion. We are talking about 
>>>>> a two cycle recursive simulation.*
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has better color coding than the prior version.
>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's agree about a two cycle recursive simulation, for which you 
>>>>>>> have not shown any evidence that it can be done correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have proven the verified fact that DDD is correctly emulated by
>>>>>> HHH and HHH correctly emulates itself emulating DDD until the outer
>>>>>> HHH sees that DDD meets the infinite recursion behavior pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is no infinite recursion pattern. 
>>>>
>>>> Sure there is. Why lie ?
>>>
>>> Yes, why do you?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> {
>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Change of subject ignored.
>>> Why distracting from the truth?
>>> This is an example of infinite recursion. But we agreed to talk about 
>>> two cycle recursion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Infinite_Recursion()
>>>> [00002122] 55               push ebp
>>>> [00002123] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002125] e8f8ffffff       call 00002122
>>>> [0000212a] 5d               pop ebp
>>>> [0000212b] c3               ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0010) [0000212b]
>>>>
>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138d2
>>>> [00002122][001138c2][001138c6] 55         push ebp
>>>> [00002123][001138c2][001138c6] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002125][001138be][0000212a] e8f8ffffff call 00002122
>>>> [00002122][001138ba][001138c2] 55         push ebp
>>>> [00002123][001138ba][001138c2] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002125][001138b6][0000212a] e8f8ffffff call 00002122
>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH. The 
>>>>> simulating HHH aborts the simulated HHH only one cycle before the 
>>>>> simulated HHH would return.
>>>>> Aborting the simulation at this point makes it incorrect.
>>>>> So, stop talking about infinite, because apparently do not 
>>>>> understand what it means. Infinite is much more than two.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you are unable to show any error in my reasoning.
>>>
>>
>> You can ignore the fact that DDD correctly simulated by HHH
>> meets this criteria and ignorance may be bliss yet cannot
>> be used as a basis for a rebuttal.
>>
>> <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>
>>
> 
> I already proved that Sipser's word do not apply here. You simply ignore 
> it and repeat the irrelevant text. Apparently unable to show any error 
> in my reasoning.
> You really want it to be a correct simulation, but that is not a proof.
> Maybe you once were a genius, but now you do not even know the 
> difference between two and infinite.
> 
> void Finite_Recursion()
> {

This is forbidden.

>    static int Level = 0;
>    if (++Level <= 2) Finite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> I am afraid that you think even this example (comparable to HHH 
> simulating itself) shows an infinite recursion.

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