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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 06:31:38 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <vbep6r$punj$3@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <da75188ffa7677bd2b6979c8fc6ba82119404306@i2pn2.org>
 <878qwn0wyz.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <efacnfsQdv-ErlT7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
 <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me> <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 13:31:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be3ab62c57446c7ddf1fbbd69383ba43";
	logging-data="850675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pR5TzwAqCG3QKZyCAmqi0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RFgUZr2VVjR59W/+hw6K8dq6lmQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3468

On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>> 
>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.
> 
> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the behaviour 
> of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one would see the 
> 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would halt as well.
> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does not 
> change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the program
> 
>>
>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing
>> is never done.
> 
> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only two 
> recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the simulation.
> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but this 
> incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This applies both 
> to the simulating and the simulated HHH.

The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.

If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
would wait for the second which would wait for third
on and on...

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