Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the execution trace
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:23:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v83s07$22se$1@news.muc.de>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <v82bi4$39v6n$4@dont-email.me> <v82tr5$3dftr$2@dont-email.me> <v82vtl$3dq41$2@dont-email.me> <v830hg$3dftr$9@dont-email.me> <v83des$2nhr$1@news.muc.de> <v83dp3$3g9s7$1@dont-email.me> <v83kpj$2nhr$2@news.muc.de> <v83li7$3hk7a$1@dont-email.me> <v83o2p$2nhr$3@news.muc.de> <v83okp$3i55i$1@dont-email.me> <v83pqe$2nhr$4@news.muc.de> <v83qp0$3igph$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 22:23:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="68494"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.1-RELEASE (amd64))
Bytes: 3925
Lines: 81

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2024 4:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2024 4:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2024 3:20 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 1:14 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Stopping running is not the same as halting.  DDD emulated by
>>>>>>>>> HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.  This is
>>>>>>>>> not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
>>>>>>>>> normally (AKA halting).

>>>>>>>> I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in
>>>>>>>> for turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or
>>>>>>>> halted.  There is no third state "aborted".

>>>>>>> Until you take the conventional ideas of
>>>>>>> (a) UTM
>>>>>>> (b) TM Description
>>>>>>> (c) Decider
>>>>>>> and combine them together to become a simulating partial halt decider.

>>>>>> Where does the notion of "aborted", as being distinct from halted, come
>>>>>> from?


>>>>> After all of these years and you don't get that?

>>>> "Aborted" being distinct from halted is an incoherent notion.  It isn't
>>>> consistent with turing machines.  I was hoping you could give a
>>>> justification for it.

>>>>> A simulating partial halt decider can stop simulating
>>>>> its input when it detects a non-halting behavior pattern.
>>>>> This does not count as the input halting.

>>>> Says who?  Well, OK, it would be the machine halting, not the input, but
>>>> that's a small point.


>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>> {
>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>> }

>> [ .... ]

>>> Do you understand that HHH(Infinite_Recursion) correctly
>>> implements this criteria for the above input?

>> There's nothing wrong with my understanding, but I'm not sure what
>> "implementing a criterion (not "criteria")" means,

[ .... ]

> HHH correctly simulates Infinite_Recursion until it correctly
> detects a the non-halting behavior pattern that every programmer
> can see.

> You dodged the question about whether you can see this
> non-halting behavior pattern on the basis of this x86 code:

It was an incoherent question.  What on Earth does "implementing a
criterion" even mean?  But I told you there's nothing amiss with my
understanding.

[ .... ]

You've got nothing more to say on my point, that the "aborted" state is
the same thing as the "halted" state?


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

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).