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: HHH(DDD) sees the exact same behavior pattern as
 HHH(Infinite_Recursion)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 08:03:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <v883vq$g39i$2@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>
 <v868k2$309r$1@dont-email.me> <v87gcm$cmps$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:03:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d358cc663705f17d44fb4afa23cd753";
	logging-data="527666"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18inPiprz13suqsX9Iz1xTa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BtDz4QFzUnbvyIBDpiNoNXEiMRM=
In-Reply-To: <v87gcm$cmps$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9517

On 7/29/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.jul.2024 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>> 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.
> 
> Why are you contradicting yourself so often? It does not look very clever.
> You were talking about an infinite set of HHH, some of which abort, some 
> of which do not abort.

*This is all that I am willing to talk about with you*
Every change of subject away from this point will be
construed as the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.

You didn't even bother to look at how HHH examines the
execution trace of Infinite_Recursion() to determine that 
Infinite_Recursion() specifies non-halting behavior.

Because of this you cannot see that the execution trace
of DDD correctly emulated by DDD is essentially this same
trace and thus also specifies non-halting behavior.

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

_Infinite_Recursion()
[0000215a] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[00002162] 5d         pop ebp
[00002163] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0010) [00002163]

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
[0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

=====

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

_DDD()
[00002177] 55               push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a] 6877210000       push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f] e853f4ffff       call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002184] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d               pop ebp
[00002188] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]

// executed HHH emulates 1st instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:10388d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH

// emulated HHH emulates 2nd instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:14e2b5
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========