Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: HHH(DDD) sees the exact same behavior pattern as
 HHH(Infinite_Recursion)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 15:10:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <v868k2$309r$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <KUidnalBUcYWDjj7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v84d5a$3p1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v84tpk$3rc90$2@dont-email.me>
 <v85kdi$3v9fb$2@dont-email.me> <v8659q$2409$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e780778616be4582a0134c2484eeadc2";
	logging-data="98619"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0GvtHohPnwCpOp8kcuius"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:t2/Zsg0ilPc5fc5lBUnX/S8LOo8=
In-Reply-To: <v8659q$2409$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6634

On 7/28/2024 2:14 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.jul.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/28/2024 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 28.jul.2024 om 05:15 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/27/2024 7:40 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2024 19:14, 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".  An aborted C program certainly doesn't
>>>>>> correspond with a running turing machine - so it must be a halted 
>>>>>> turing
>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So aborted programs are halted programs.  If you disagree, perhaps 
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Aborting is an action performed by a simulator, not the TM being 
>>>>> simulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to count "aborted" as some kind of final status, it will 
>>>>> have to be the status of a specific /PARTIAL SIMULATOR's/ 
>>>>> simulation of a given computation.  That's not a property of the 
>>>>> computation itself, as different partial simulators can simulate 
>>>>> the same computation and terminate for different reasons.  Like 
>>>>> HHH(DDD) aborts, while UTM(DDD) simulates to completion and so the 
>>>>> final simulation status is halts. [Neither of those outcomes 
>>>>> contradict the fact that the computation DDD() halts.]
>>>>>
>>>>> If some partial simulator halts when simulating a computation [as 
>>>>> with UTM(DDD)] that implies the computation DDD() halts.  But if 
>>>>> the simulator aborts, it doesn't say that much (in and of itself) 
>>>>> about whether the /computation/ halts.  The halting problem 
>>>>> statement is not concerned with simulations or how the simulations 
>>>>> end.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every time anyone in these PO threads says "halts" it ought to be 
>>>>> 100% clear to everyone whether the computation itself is being 
>>>>> discussed, or whether some simulation final status is intended. 
>>>>> (But that's far from being the case!)  Since the halting problem is 
>>>>> concerned with computations halting and not how partial simulations 
>>>>> are ended, I suggest that PO explicitly make clear that he is 
>>>>> referring to simulations, whenever that is the case.  It seems 
>>>>> reasonable that readers seeing "halts" with no further 
>>>>> clarification can interpret that as actual computation behaviour, 
>>>>> as that is how the term is always used in the literature.  Same 
>>>>> with other terms like "reach"...
>>>>>
>>>>> So when PO says "DDD simulated by HHH cannot reach its final ret 
>>>>> instruction" is he talking about the computation DDD() [as defined 
>>>>> mathematically], or its simulation by HHH?  He means the latter, 
>>>>> but its far from clear, I'd say!  [I think most readers now have 
>>>>> come around to reading it as a statement about simulations rather 
>>>>> than the actual computation, which totally changes things...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> It is a verified fact that DDD emulated by HHH 100% exactly
>>>> and precisely according to the actual x86 semantics of
>>>> the emulated code including the recursive call that causes
>>>> HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD cannot possibly get
>>>> past it own 0000216b machine address.
>>>>
>>>> *Anyone as much as hinting otherwise is not being truthful*
>>>> If we remove all of the problematic code then this same
>>>> trace still occurs until it crashes from OOM error.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is ridiculously stupid to expect the correct emulation
>> of a non-halting input to end.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense ignored.
> We are not discussing a non-halting HHH, 

No we are not. Please don't act so stupidly.

We are seeing that Infinite_Recursion() does not halt
and seeing that Infinite_Recursion() shows the exact
same non-halting behavior pattern as DDD correctly
emulated by HHH.

Until you do that YOU ARE ACTING STUPIDLY.
Go back an try again.

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