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 --- key point needing review
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 11:23:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v73iei$os5d$1@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>
 <M0SdnQhovsrX1Qj7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 18:23:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637";
	logging-data="815277"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SG4mJPaBDiVQjF3fKJSeK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:W1rfALp+Syhn/W/cOwx8iBCp8d0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <M0SdnQhovsrX1Qj7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 6558

On 7/15/2024 11:03 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 15/07/2024 09:59, 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.
> 
> I doubt he has done it properly if at all.  I.e. I'm confident there 
> will still be mutable static data giving different code paths for 
> outer/inner executions.
> 

That is counter-factual.

> I offered to help PO sort out the required recursive logic but this was 
> ignored, PO saying it would take him thousands of years(?) to do it 
> correctly.  I reckon anyone else here would fix it in a couple of hours!
> 

*THIS IS THE KEY POINT NEEDING MIKES REVIEW*
I propose that the use of static local variables to
pass information up from the slaves to the master
does not violate computability.

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