Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5usj6$16k0l$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 13:29:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 96 Message-ID: <v5usj6$16k0l$2@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> <v5ujbj$1na1q$2@i2pn2.org> <v5ujk7$152mc$1@dont-email.me> <v5urlj$16atu$2@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 20:29:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376"; logging-data="1265685"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19syiOo5qHdOSSjaNbWzdt0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y93HHRBAzLLDjkkEE2qBteQOoFQ= In-Reply-To: <v5urlj$16atu$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5493 On 7/1/2024 1:14 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 01.jul.2024 om 17:56 schreef olcott: >> On 7/1/2024 10:52 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:35:54 -0500 schrieb 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: >>> >>>>>> 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 >>> If. D does stop running though, because the H that it calls aborts the >>> recursive emulation in order to be a decider. >>> >> >> *In each of the following cases the abort criteria has been met* > > Again a claim without evidence. > If true, the abort criteria are incorrect. The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong? The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong? The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong? https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/ <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> So you don't even know what an infinite loop is? > The last one does not need to be aborted, because it returns after N > cycles of simulations, when the simulated HHH aborts and returns. > Only infinite simulations need to be aborted. > Is that too difficult to understand? > Your thinking is running in void circles: > Because HHH aborts you think it is an infinite recursion and because you > think HHH is doing an infinite recursion you think it needs to be aborted. > But that is incorrect. The correct reasoning is: > Because HHH aborts, it is not an infinite recursion and because there is > no infinite recursion no abort is needed. > The simulation of an aborting HHH does not need to be aborted. Only the > simulation of a non-aborting HHH needs to be aborted. > This proves that neither an aborting HHH, not a non-aborting HHH is able > to correctly simulate itself. (Although they might simulate each other.) > >> >> void Infinite_Loop() >> { >> HERE: goto HERE; >> } >> >> void Infinite_Recursion() >> { >> Infinite_Recursion(); >> } >> >> void DDD() >> { >> HHH(DDD); >> } >> >> int main() >> { >> HHH(Infinite_Loop); >> HHH(Infinite_Recursion); >> HHH(DDD); >> } >> > > void Finite_Recursion (int N) { > if (N != 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1); > } > > This is equivalent to you HHH that simulates N cycles. > No abort needed. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer