Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
 --- Honest Dialogue
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:03:39 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v7h1mb$3lcvq$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
 <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v75a0l$16bjt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v76dth$1cf96$3@dont-email.me> <v77sna$1o83i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78grc$1rc43$7@dont-email.me> <v78if6$1rnr3$3@dont-email.me>
 <v78jva$1rc43$12@dont-email.me> <v78kmk$1rnr3$7@dont-email.me>
 <v78m3q$1smtm$1@dont-email.me> <v7akf2$2b79b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7b88b$2e2aq$6@dont-email.me> <v7dap8$2u0p5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7duea$30pvh$10@dont-email.me> <v7ftte$3euo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <v7gh88$3im62$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:03:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3aa303c5439f1309d2c368c79425aa71";
	logging-data="3847162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18eLuy+BlR0yBB99xEX5Fwj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7sDBKUvrMFHYqSHfhE4kuU5aUvQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v7gh88$3im62$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5031

Op 20.jul.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:
> On 7/20/2024 3:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 19.jul.2024 om 16:49 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant, because you do not understand the difference between 
>> Infinite_Loop and Finite_Recursion.
>>
> 
> *Until you understand that this is true*
> *we cannot have an honest dialogue*
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD();
> }
> 
> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.

And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, making the simulation incorrect.

DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, 
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides 
that the simulation of itself does not halt.

HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which 
is incorrect.

Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of 
recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the 
simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles, 
because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct 
simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria olcott 
stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such 
a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end 
confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach 
the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true 
that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the 
simulation incorrect.

Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to 
detect a non-halting behaviour.

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will 
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH 
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.