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
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
 <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
 <a177dd76613794d6bb877c65ffe6c587a8f31bc1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6tvpv$3imib$14@dont-email.me>
 <091e8b7baeea467ee894b1c79c8943cb9773adb7@i2pn2.org>
 <v6u346$3khl8$1@dont-email.me>
 <16ac79611a441e7e01119631051f69119eee958a@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v06i$3pivt$1@dont-email.me>
 <23cb2d2401b87bf4f6a604aa1a78b93ffc9a29bc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6v2t1$3pmjn$3@dont-email.me>
 <3fc6548531f91ed14a27420caf9679a634573ed0@i2pn2.org>
 <v70lmo$61d8$1@dont-email.me>
 <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
 <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v725d7$hlvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:23:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637";
	logging-data="740956"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182eeJazZ3FMv+gXRkT1Hmp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GSXXwietxyGGdwkV+GCI+klgSGU=
In-Reply-To: <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6616

On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 15/07/2024 01:20, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:00:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote:
> 
>>>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call
>>>>> HHH(DDD) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
>>>>> Stopped
>>>> How is this detected?
>>> PO seems not to want to answer you, as I notice you've asked this
>>> question more than once and PO dodges a direct response, so I'll try.
>>> (Alternatively, PO has provided a link to his source code in the past,
>>> so if you can find that link you can just look the answer yourself -
>>> the functions are all in his halt7.c file, which is compiled but not
>>> linked, then the obj file is interpreted within his x86utm.exe (source
>>> also given in the link.  The link might not reflect his current code??)
> Thank you. I didn't bother digging through their code, and they refused
> to give the abortion criterion.
> 
>>> HHH [outer HHH only!] examines a global trace table of simulated
>>> instruction (from all simulation levels merged together).  The
>>> particular message "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped"
>>> seems to be issued when:
>>> -  last instruction is a CALL -  working backwards through the merged
>>> trace table, another CALL is encountered -  ..which is issued at the
>>> same address -  ..and is calling to the same address -  ..and no
>>> "conditional branch" instructions occur in the trace table
>>>        between the two call instructions
>>>
>>> KEY TO NOT BEING MISLED BY THE ABOVE:
>>>
>>> 0. The "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" message is just
>>> a printf.
>>>      It does not prove that /actual/ infinite recursion was detected -
>>>      on the contrary,
>>>      all here but PO realise that the recursion detected is just
>>>      finite recursion.
>>>
>>> 1. The trace table being examined is NOT an x86 processor trace - it is
>>> a "merged simulation trace" containing entries for ALL SIMULATION
>>>      LEVELS.
>>>      So the two CALL instructions are not referring to one single x86
>>> processor.
>> When emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) the outer HHH emulates itself emulating
>> DDD.
>> I think that joes does not understand these things.
> 
>>>      Typically, the last call instruction is from a deeper nested
>>>      simulation than the earlier detected call instruction.  The outer
>>>      simulations are all
>>>      still running, but do not appear in the trace table or logs
>>> presented by PO due to the next note.
>>>
>>> 2. The searched trace table is filtered to only contain instructions
>>> within the C function D/DD/DDD/.. !!
>>>      YES, YOU READ THAT RIGHT!  ALL CODE IN HHH IS TOTALLY IGNORED,
>>> INCLUDING
>>>      THE CONDITIONAL BRANCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE TESTING THE VERY
>>>      ABORT TESTS THAT CAUSE OUTER HHH TO ABORT.
>>>
>>> 3. Inner HHH's do not perform the same tests as above, because they
>>> inspect a global
>>>      variable which tells them they are inner HHH's.  Yeah, that means
>>> the simulation
>>>      is completely broken logically... [but... the outer HHH will
>>>      abort first, so
>>>      PO might argue the outcome will be the same, even though
>>>      logically it is broken...]
> Ah, and here I believed them when they said they had rewritten it.
> 
>>>   > Is it also triggered when calling a function in a loop?
>>> Not sure what you mean.  Calling a function in a loop ends if the loop
>>> ends, right?  What loop are you thinking of?
>>> Anyhow, provided the call instructions are physically located in
>>> function D() [i.e. not H() or something called from H] I guess it would
>>> match.  But the C function D has only one call instruction, which isn't
>>> in a loop!
> I wondered about just calling the same function repeatedly with the same
> parameters (on the same simulation level).
> 
>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted.
> 

At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted

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