Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:25:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v5usbj$16k0l$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$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> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5p4$1irrf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5s4f4$jvgt$3@dont-email.me> <v5tp92$vsqr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5u94l$12udb$5@dont-email.me> <v5uec2$12qkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5uesa$145ld$2@dont-email.me> <v5ugei$12qkb$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5uh66$14k9s$1@dont-email.me> <v5uqt1$16atu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:25:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376";
	logging-data="1265685"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/r2BcqWxSbhYdQ8UgebA/L"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j9gj/ILsALm9v945KceK5w/8mCI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5uqt1$16atu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5300

On 7/1/2024 1:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jul.2024 om 17:15 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/1/2024 10:02 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 01.jul.2024 om 16:35 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of 
>>>>>>>>> aborting,
>>>>>>>>> the same as the outer one does?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and 
>>>>>>>>> detect
>>>>>>>>> a repeating state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The inner ones always see one less execution trace
>>>>>>>> than the next outer one, thus could only meet their
>>>>>>>> abort criteria after they have already been aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the 
>>>>>>> emulation was incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some
>>>>>> fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH
>>>>>> ever aborts and HHH never stops running.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that does not make the result of the abort correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Not aborting will loop infinitely. 
>>>>
>>>>      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 IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
>>>> THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
>>>> THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
>>>
>>> It is inevitable to abort, but that does not make the simulation 
>>> correct, because:
>>>
>>
>> Of every possibility that can possibly be is is absolutely
>> not inevitable to abort.
>>
>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH is either aborted at some point
>> or crashes due to out-of-memory error.
> 
> Which shows that both simulations are incorrect. The aborted one and the 
> crashed one.
> 
>>
>> You just aren't very good at these things are you?
> Even here your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> It seems that you do not quite understand the theory. When talking about 
> correct simulation, we can ignore memory limits.
> That may be too complex for you already.
> 
> It is not relevant whether HHH must abort, but it is relevant that HHH 
> *does* abort and halt.

*YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF THESE WORDS*

<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>

> Therefore, a correct simulation of HHH, should not abort. This proves 
> that HHH is unable to simulate itself, because it does abort (too soon).
> 
> 

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