Path: ...!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: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 09:37:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 16:37:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
	logging-data="3672693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ne/s0I61vYHbTSt/pYUAg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iu431YrKURok53FqeBdSuAOrASg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3608

On 8/3/2024 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:58 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-02 20:57:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Everyone here understands that that depends on whther HHH returns.
>>>
>>
>> Fred's understanding is worse than that.
>> Some have deeper understanding than that.
>>
>> *Ben has the best understanding of all*
>>
>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>  > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>> ...
>>  > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
>>  > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
>>
> 
> we are talking about H that aborts and halts.
> Dreaming of a HHH that does not halt if it were no halted may be 
> relaxing, but it is completely irrelevant.
> Olcott still does not understand that such dreams have no effect on the 
> coded HHH that is programmed to abort and halt.
> When it halts it halts, but that is already too difficult for olcott.
> He keeps dreaming of HHH that does not halt.

*Ben's understanding is correct yours is incorrect*
Ben's understanding refers to applying this criteria
to the following code where H(D,D) halts.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

int D(int (*x)())
{
   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   H(D,D);
}

In the above code D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly
reach its own second instruction, thus cannot possibly reach
its own halt state of "return".

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