Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Mike's correction of Joes
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:13:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v9nj9g$1emld$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me> <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org> <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me> <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org> <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me> <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org> <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me> <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me> <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org> <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me> <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me> <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org> <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me> <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <27a1f3ca5697d57b9bc29add378db8bdb42e33da@i2pn2.org> <v9kv6e$v95g$2@dont-email.me> <v9n1o5$1cb68$1@dont-email.me> <v9ndp3$1dsip$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:13:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a07fdd64951d0e7174b4620f03bdd40";
	logging-data="1530541"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19C53fojpbeao4RHu7b14vu"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mjTvu+SCxmDbDxB/PUdqHFtuQQ4=
Bytes: 5055

On 2024-08-16 11:39:15 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/16/2024 3:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-15 13:18:06 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 8/15/2024 2:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:08:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD by HHH)
>>>>>>>>>>>> will reach that return.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction in terms.
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
>>>>>>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
>>>>>>>>> complete emulation would never halt.
>>>>>>>> What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
>>>>>> simulations.
>>>>> *You corrected Joes most persistent error*
>>>>> She made sure to ignore this correction.
>>>> Would you please point it out again?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I did in the other post.
>>> 
>>>>>> But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly
>>>>>> halt.
>>>>> A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion until
>>>>> aborted.
>>>> Yes, HHH can't simulate itself completely. I guess no simulator can.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> A simulating termination analyzer can correctly simulate
>>> itself simulating an input that halts.
>>> 
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>> 
>> That DDD halts if HHH halts but at least your HHH fails to simulate
>> itself with DDD as parameter to its return. Perhaps it can simulate
>> 
>> void XXX() {
>>  HHH(YYY);
>> }
>> 
>> void YYY() {
>>  Output("Hello!");
>> }
>> 
> 
> void YYY()
> {
>   OutputString("Hello!\n");
> }
> 
> void XXX()
> {
>   HHH(YYY);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>   XXX();
> }
> 
> When corrected your code ran fine.
> You never have HHH simulating itself.

Thanks!

You seem to have two output functions: Output and OutputString.
What is the differece?

I would expect that HHH says that YYY halts. Have you tried?

What does HHH say about XXX?

-- 
Mikko