Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:08:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <v97op3$l4f4$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>
 <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me> <v94dir$jt3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9569q$o1gt$2@dont-email.me> <v95ch2$p7ls$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95fhp$q2jp$1@dont-email.me> <v95r1q$7ps5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95vjo$60of$1@dont-email.me> <v97895$gh2a$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97j7u$ilah$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:08:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="143c8b99553830e826ac2a08c0df4c26";
	logging-data="692708"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QFB4OiLCjnTvjcWSeiHkn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WHNt9pQzHdnIXFZCic95S1dZTaw=
In-Reply-To: <v97j7u$ilah$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5740

Op 10.aug.2024 om 13:34 schreef olcott:
> On 8/10/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.aug.2024 om 22:53 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/9/2024 2:35 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 09.aug.2024 om 18:19 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>> emulates zero to infinity instructions of DDD correctly.
>>> Every expert in the C language sees that this emulated DDD
>>> cannot possibly reaches its own "return" instruction halt state.
>> And you don't need to be an expert to see that this proves that all 
>> these simulations are incorrect. 
> 
> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that
> Richard has been persistently pushing:
> 
> When N > 0 instructions of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH
> then no instructions of DDD have been correctly emulated.
> 


In other words, you believe that only the numbers zero and infinite exist.

If I say that N instructions is not enough, you think I say zero 
instructions are simulated correctly.
Your English is very poor.

What I say is:
We know that HHH is halting. It is a requirement, it is also shown when 
executed directly and it is also shown when it is correctly simulated by 
another simulator, like HHH1. We then see that the number of 
instructions to be simulated to reach the end is K. But HHH simulates 
only N instructions. It skips M=K-N instructions.
Maybe I should repeat, because your English is so poor. I do not say 
that N=0.
It is not the N instructions that are correctly simulated that makes the 
simulation incorrect, it is the M instructions that are not simulated at 
all that makes the simulation incorrect.

Olcott tries to keep the discussion going on the subject whether the 
simulation of N instructions is correct, or not. As if there is anyone 
with doubts about the correct simulation of the N instructions. But he 
keeps the discussion there, to avoid to discuss why the simulation 
aborts after N instructions. He says that he has criteria to detect 
non-halting behaviour, but he is very vague about these criteria.
He has only shown a few trivial examples in which these criteria seem to 
have the desired effect of detecting non-halting behaviour. But it is 
clear that a few examples do not tell how good the algorithm is. Even 
for a decider that always returns 1 we can find examples for which it is 
correct.
The discussion should be about this algorithm. But that cannot be done, 
because olcott does not reveal the algorithm. As usual, we see only 
claims that non-halting behaviour is detected, but no evidence that 
these claims are true.
Apart from the trivial examples, such as Infinite_loop and 
Infinite_Recursion, he says that the abort is necessary to avoid an 
infinite recursion. Another thing nobody denies, but he likes to bring 
it up again and again, as if it proves that the algorithm is correct.
It seems that he does not realise that when the code to abort is added 
to HHH, we can construct a new DDD that calls this new HHH that aborts. 
But he keeps dreaming of the HHH that does not abort.
But the input of the new DDD includes the new HHH that aborts and halts, 
so the only correct decision would be that it halts and there is no 
reason to abort *this* input. (That does not mean that the HHH that does 
not abort, still needs to be aborted, but that is another input.)

The discussion should target the criteria to detect non-halting 
behaviour, but I am afraid olcott will not tell any details about them, 
because the halting theorem already proved that no such criteria exist 
that are always correct. Olcott probably knows that, if he would reveal 
details, therefore, immediately errors in his criteria will be spotted, 
so he needs to hide these criteria and avoid a discussion about them, in 
order to keep the discussion going.